There were no roll call votes in the House and Senate last week.
On Nov. 3, or prior to that for voters who take advantage of early voting between Oct. 17 and Oct. 30, all voters will have the opportunity to vote on nine ballot questions that will become law if approved by the majority of voters.
To get on the ballot, the groups backing each ballot question were required to collect and submit at least 74,574 signatures last fall. The Legislature had until May 5, 2026, to act on the proposed law. The Legislature did not act on any of the proposals by its May 5 deadline. At which point, supporters were required to collect another 12,429 signatures by July 1, 2026, to get their question on the ballot. All nine groups gathered sufficient signatures to get their question on the 2026 ballot.
Secretary of State William Galvin has issued an 88-page book via the U.S. mail and online with details about each question. If you would rather not read the entire 88-page book, Beacon Hill Roll Call will be presenting a report on each ballot question over the next several weeks prior to the election.
Question 3
Question 3 asks voters if they approve of a bill that would eliminate political party primaries for state elections and instead establish a system where there would be a single, all-party primary in which all candidates, regardless of their party affiliation, would be listed on one ballot, and voters could vote for any candidate on the ballot. The two candidates receiving the most votes in the all-party primary would advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.
The proposed law would provide political party status to any group whose candidates for any statewide office received at least 3% of the ballots cast in the prior state primary. It would require candidates for governor and lieutenant governor to run and be listed jointly on the ballot in the all-party primary.
What supporters say
“Question 3 makes Massachusetts elections more competitive and opens the door to new, fresh voices,” Danielle Allen, chair of the Yes on 3 Campaign, told Beacon Hill Roll Call. “Right now, too many popular candidates never make it past low-turnout primaries and gatekeepers, and in 2024, 61% of our elections had just one name on the ballot. Under Question 3, every voter and every candidate takes part in the same primary, and the top two vote-getters advance to November, where they face a much larger, more diverse and more representative general election electorate.”
Allen continued, “Opponents are trying to scare voters because the status quo suits them and their incumbent friends, but the truth is that all-party primaries give voters more choices; produces a dynamic, voter-driven general election instead of one decided months earlier by a small slice of insiders; incentivizes officials to deliver; and is familiar to them already — it’s how we vote in mayoral and municipal elections across the commonwealth. Massachusetts is ready for a democracy that inspires action from our elected leaders to solve the numerous problems we’re facing — on affordability, healthcare, housing and too many more. Yes on Question 3 has a strong, broad coalition of voting rights, civil rights, grassroots, labor, climate and civic groups, along with former and current officials, and is growing every week. With majority support across demographics, we’re building real momentum toward November.”
What opponents say
“Private equity executives are trying to buy a more favorable election system and making promises they never intend to keep, and once they rig the system in their favor, it becomes nearly impossible to undo,” Berg Powers, chair of Voter Rights MA, told Beacon Hill Roll Call. “The overwhelming majority of this campaign’s funding comes from obscenely wealthy individuals, which is why this isn’t a grassroots movement. It’s a hedge fund with a ballot question. Independent voters are not shut out of party primaries today, because unenrolled voters can already choose either party’s ballot without joining a party.”
Berg continued, “And Question 3 doesn’t fix the real competition problem in Massachusetts, where people don’t run for office because of time and money, since it makes campaigns longer and more expensive. Unions, community groups and everyday activists from across the political spectrum have come together to urge a ‘no’ vote on 3, and as voters learn what’s at stake, they’ll join the people and groups they trust most.”
What your vote does
A “Yes” vote would eliminate separate party primaries for state elections and require a single all-party primary in which all candidates appear on one ballot, voters can vote for any candidate, and the top two candidates would advance to the general election.
A “No” vote would make no change to the laws governing primary elections.
Also up on Beacon Hill
State auditor uncovers $10.6 million in public benefit fraud
State Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s Bureau of Special Investigations revealed that it has flagged $10.6 million in public benefit fraud in the second half of fiscal year 2026.
The investigation showed that the most fraud found was more than $6 million in MassHealth fraud and some $3.9 million in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) fraud. MassHealth is the state’s Medicaid program that provides health care for low-income individuals and people with disabilities. SNAP, previously known as food stamps, is a federal nutrition program administered by the state to provide food and other nutrition-related benefits to qualified low-income Massachusetts residents.
Other fraud includes $538,330 tied to the Personal Care Attendant program; $130,480 in the Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children program; and $38,460 in the Emergency Aid to the Elderly, Disabled and Children program.
“These important programs are meant for the people who need them — not for those looking to game the system,” DiZoglio said. “When someone commits fraud, they’re taking resources away from the people these programs were created to serve. Our office will continue to work with our partners to identify fraud because taxpayers deserve to have their hard-earned money protected.”
Suspend the gas tax
House Speaker Ron Mariano, D-Quincy, was non-committal but pessimistic about whether the House will approve one of the pending proposals to suspend the state’s 24-cent-per-gallon gas tax.
Mike Minogue, the Republican candidate for governor, proposed a suspension of the gas tax whenever prices climb above $4 per gallon. Gov. Maura Healey filed a supplemental budget that includes a two-month suspension of the gas tax.
Mariano told State House News Service, “I think we’ve taken votes on this conversation in the past. … But you know, obviously those votes were pretty significantly against previously.”
The House has voted overwhelmingly several times in the past against similar proposals.
Supporters of the suspension say gas tax relief would help individuals with the rising costs of gas, transportation, groceries, goods and services. Opponents say the state cannot afford the revenue loss and that the suspension would affect the state’s bond rating, as well as possibly result in cuts in state spending for programs that help many people.