There were no roll calls in the House or 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 4

This question asks voters if they approve of allowing an eligible individual to register to vote on Election Day by going to their polling place and presenting proof of residency and signing a written oath. Proof of residency could be a valid photo identification, or documentation showing the individual’s name and the address where the individual resides, including a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, residential lease, wireless telephone statement, paycheck, current student fee statement or other document from a post-secondary school, or another government document or correspondence. The written oath would require the individual to certify that they are a citizen of the United States, are at least 18 years old, are not legally prohibited from voting, and have not and will not vote in the same election at another location. The oath would require the person to acknowledge that providing false information is a felony punishable by not more than five years imprisonment, a fine of not more than $10,000 or both.

What supporters say

Norma Shulman, a spokesperson for “Yes on Election Day Registration,” did not respond to requests from Beacon Hill Roll Call asking her why voters should vote “Yes” on Question 4 and how the campaign is going. However, Shulman did respond to Secretary of State William Galvin and her response was included in Galvin’s 88-page book.

“A vote for Election Day registration ensures our democracy is truly representative, secure and modern,” Shulman wrote. “Allowing voters to register at the polls will give thousands of citizens the chance to participate in important national elections. This policy especially helps those who move frequently, like young people and renters. This law provides maximum voter access with rigorous security safeguards. It is a common-sense reform that guarantees every eligible voice is heard.”

What opponents say

Amy Carnevale, a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Republican Party, did not respond to requests from Beacon Hill Roll Call asking her why voters should vote “No” on Question 4 and how the campaign is going. However, Carnevale did respond to Secretary of State William Galvin and her response was included in Galvin’s 88-page book.

“The public welfare demands that elections be protected from fraud,” Carnevale wrote. “Same-day voter registration prejudices that welfare by eliminating the advance period during which election officials can examine a registrant’s identity, residence, eligibility or duplicate registration before a ballot is issued. Instead, officials would be required to make those determinations at the polling place, under substantial time pressure and amid the extraordinary demands of Election Day. Errors, false statements or conflicting records that escape detection may not be discovered until after the ballot has been cast and commingled with all others, when it can no longer be identified or withdrawn.”

What your vote does

A “Yes” vote would allow Election Day voter registration.

A “No” vote would make no changes to the laws governing voter registration.

Question 5

This question asks voters if they approve of limiting state revenue in a given year to the net amount of state revenue from the prior year, increased by a rate equal to the average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts over the most recent three years. If revenue collected by the state exceeds the limit, the excess amount would be refunded to taxpayers the following year.

What supporters say

“Massachusetts families are facing a real affordability challenge,” said Chris Keohane, a spokesperson for Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts. “Housing, food, childcare, energy and other everyday costs continue to put pressure on household budgets. At the same time, state tax revenues have grown dramatically. Since 2010, our state budget has grown more than two times the rate of wage increases and 2.5 times the rate of inflation. This is unsustainable — particularly with stagnant job growth and a resident leaving our state every 11 minutes and 38 seconds. At a time when people are struggling, now is the time to put money directly back in people’s pockets.”

Keohane continued, “Opponents insist this is a budget cut, which it clearly is not. This simply limits how much we can grow revenue year to year. Furthermore, their position that this benefits the wealthy is patently false. Under a 2023 change in Massachusetts law, refunds are required to be distributed equally among eligible taxpayers. The proposed ballot measure does not change that. We are excited with the direction of the campaign. Every public poll has shown us with a significant lead and the interactions we have with voters reflects it. We have been doing dozens of regional forums, interviews and meetings. In each one, the response has been phenomenal because people want money back in their pockets.”

What opponents say

“As voters learn about the negative consequences Question 5 would have for Massachusetts, they’re increasingly seeing through the spin from the anti-government multi-millionaires who paid to put Question 5 on the ballot,” said Andrew Farnitano, a spokesperson for Protect Massachusetts’ Future. “Question 5’s reckless revenue limit would force repeated cuts to state and local public services, leading to layoffs for teachers, nurses and firefighters.”

Farnitano continued, “Occasional tax rebates won’t make up for the fact that Question 5 would make healthcare, childcare and housing more expensive for Massachusetts families. Question 5 would give repeated tax rebates to the rich while the rest of us suffer the pain of budget cuts, and it would severely limit the state’s ability to recover from recessions. Question 5 is great for multi-millionaires who don’t rely on public services, but it would be terrible for the rest of us.”

What your vote does

A “Yes” vote would limit state revenue to the net amount of state revenue from the prior year, increased by a rate equal to the average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts over the most recent three years and return the excess amount to taxpayers.

A “No” vote would make no changes to the laws governing the amount of revenue the state can collect.

Question 6

This question asks voters if they approve of establishing a “Nature for All Fund” that, subject to appropriation by the Legislature, would receive 50% of state taxes collected from the sale and use of sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses for the first year of its operation and 100% in subsequent years. The proposed law would allow the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs to spend the money on natural resource conservation and would also allow public and private donations to the fund.

Natural resource conservation would include the conservation or restoration of land to protect drinking water, streams, rivers, lakes, coasts, farms, forests, connectivity between open spaces and lands and natural resources of Indigenous cultural significance, as well as the creation, improvement and management of parks, trails, greenspaces and outdoor recreation access.

What supporters say

“Mass Audubon, the Trustees, the Conservation Law Foundation and more than 125 organizations across Massachusetts support Question 6 because we see an urgent need to protect clean drinking water, preserve forests and wildlife habitats, build more trails and parks, and increase access to the outdoors and nature for everyone in the commonwealth,” said Andrew Farnitano, a spokesperson for Mass Audubon. “Question 6 would dedicate funds from the existing state sales tax we already pay on sporting goods like camping gear, golf clubs and fishing equipment to a new “Nature for All Fund,” without raising taxes one cent. That means as much as $100 million each year — just 0.16% of the overall state budget — for permanently protecting and conserving water and nature.”

Farnitano continued, “And Question 6 comes with real accountability: a public oversight board that approves all spending and strict annual reporting requirements so the public can see how every dollar is spent. A ‘Yes’ on 6 will permanently protect the places we love by conserving forests, farms and wildlife habitats, reducing pollution in our rivers and streams, and creating and improving local parks. I’ll also note that there is no organized opposition to Question 6.”

What opponents say

There is no organized group urging a “No” vote on this question so Beacon Hill Roll Call could not reach out to such a group.

Opponents in general said the law would create an unstable fiscal framework by permanently earmarking 100% of state sales tax revenues from sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses. They noted the revenue currently goes to existing ongoing programs and that redirecting it would require the reallocation or reduction of funds presently directed toward these other state initiatives.

What your vote does

A “Yes” vote would create a fund that would be used for natural resource conservation.

A “No” vote would make no changes to the laws governing natural resources conservation.

Also up on Beacon Hill

$403,500 to promote specialty crops

The Healey-Driscoll administration announced grants of $403,500 to six Massachusetts agricultural organizations to promote specialty crops to help local farms and producers bring more fresh fruits, dried fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, horticulture and nursery crops, including floriculture, to market. The measure is designed to help these local farms reach new customers and grow their businesses across the state.

“Specialty crops set Massachusetts apart and are essential to the state’s agricultural identity,” said Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Rebecca Tepper. “These grants are aimed at helping our specialty crop producers compete in a crowded marketplace — by funding projects that improve quality, expand marketing and create new opportunities for local businesses.”

“Specialty crops represent an enormous and essential part of our agricultural economy, and the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) is committed to providing the resources necessary to scale their production and increase marketplace visibility,” said MDAR Commissioner Ashley Randle. “Through this critical federal-state partnership, we are equipping our growers and commodity associations with the tools needed to drive consumer sales, strengthen supply chains and secure the long-term economic sustainability of Massachusetts agriculture.”

CCC celebrates 10 years of adult use of cannabis

The Cannabis Control Commission (CCC) kicked off a multimedia initiative to mark 10 years of adult-use cannabis in Massachusetts. The commission offers insights into how the industry has become an economic force with hundreds of businesses that employ tens of thousands of people and has generated nearly $2 billion in state and local tax revenue. The initiative will include a dedicated webpage featuring economic data and a video capturing the highlights of the industry over the last decade. The public will also be able to view initiative materials via the agency’s Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube and X pages.

“After 10 years, cannabis businesses are familiar, becoming part of everyday life in hundreds of communities across the state,” Commissioner Anthony Wilson said. “As a commissioner, I’m looking forward to shaping the next decade of the industry by working to improve and update our policies to support the growth of the industry and to protect health and safety, including the safety of workers in the industry and the safety of products available in the marketplace.”

The initiative is launching just a few weeks before voters will decide on Nov. 3 on a ballot question asking them if they favor repealing the law making recreational use of marijuana by adults legal. Some supporters of repealing the law say that the timing of the initiative is not coincidental and is designed to use state revenues, which fund the commission, to help defeat the ballot question.

Eliminate the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse

A new poll shows 84% of Massachusetts voters support eliminating the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse, and 67% say this should be a high priority for legislators. The poll was conducted for and released by the Massachusetts-based organization Enough Abuse, the nation’s oldest citizen-based child advocacy organization.

The poll comes on the heels of Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s report detailing the findings of her office’s investigation into child sexual abuse in the Catholic Dioceses of Fall River, Springfield and Worcester.  The investigation found evidence that more than 270 Catholic clerics abused nearly 1,000 children at the three dioceses.

The House and Senate in July approved two different versions of a primary care and healthcare affordability bill. The House version includes a provision that would eliminate the civil statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse. The Senate version does not include that provision. A House-Senate conference committee is working on hammering out a compromise version of the two bills.

Under current law, effective for abuse that took place after June 26, 2014, survivors must sue within 35 years of the abuse, or within seven years of discovering that the abuse caused them psychological harm. However, the clock does not start ticking until the survivor turns 18. In practice, that caps most claims around age 53 and leaves survivors whose window has already closed with no path back into court.

“We are grateful to Speaker Mariano for his leadership in support of healing for survivors and stopping future crimes, and we are gratified to see such strong support among voters for getting this effort over the finish line,” said Jetta Bernier, executive director of Enough Abuse. “We urge Senate colleagues to stand with the House and keep these provisions in the final bill.”