Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026?

Source*

Note: The summary of the law that Question 7 proposes is summarized down below:

Summary:

Question 7 focuses on building permissions for single-family homes on land that is at least 5,000 square feet, has at least 50ft of land bordering the street, road, or public way that it faces, and has access to public sewer and water services.

Source*

Pro's:

• Question 7 aims to help with the current housing crisis in Massachusetts and make housing more affordable (a lot of elderly people can't move out of their homes because of the current legal requieremnts).

Con's:

• Limited land would be used for this single-family homes, decreasong available land to be used for construction.

Impact if not passed:

• Building homes would require a minimum plot size for the single family home; “Starter homes”.

• New requirement for public water and sewer access.

• New requirement for at least 50 feet of “frontage” (land bordering the street) between the house and the street

Impact if passed:

• Nothing would change from the current law, the amount of land required would be up to each jurisdiction.

• Shifts zoning power slightly --> allows family housing development wherever, as long as it fits the criteria

• Cities couldn't necessarily block construction

Additional sources for more information: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/research-and-statistics/2026-information-for-voters/2026-ballot-question7.htm https://tufts.app.box.com/v/cSPA-Q7-2026

https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/10/07/massachusetts-election-ballot-question-7-starter-homes-small-lots

History
In every state, the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative Branches make up the state government. Most other states have at least two branches of government that the public can access for information under the Public Records Law. The Public Records Law gives anyone the right to formally request government information, and the government must respond within 10 business days by granting access or denying the request. 

Massachusetts currently

Massachusetts allows requests for information from state agencies, as well as cities and towns. It covers books, papers, photos, statistics, and financial statements. However, Massachusetts is one of the states where the Public Records Law does not cover all 3 branches of state government. That means when a person wants access to government papers, no formal law grants them the right to request them.

Question 1: This proposed law would make most records held by the Legislature and the Office of the Governor public records under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. This proposed law would exempt documents related to the development of public policy and communications between legislators and their constituents, if those communications are reasonably related to a constituent’s request for assistance in obtaining government-provided benefits or services or interacting with a government agency.

A YES VOTE would make most records held by the Legislature and the Office of the Governor public records under the Massachusetts Public Records Law.

A NO VOTE would make no change to the Massachusetts Public Records Law.

EXPLAINATIONS

Most records related to the government’s office will now be made public, except for private messages. Anyone can now request records from the government, and the request is private and protected; if officials can't retrieve the information, they still must reply within 10 days.

TIME

If passed, the change will take place in January of 2027.

PROS

• Most other states already have at least 2 branches of government under the Public Records Law, while Massachusetts is about the only outlier, with all 3 branches of state government exempt. 

• Two years ago, 72% of voters supported State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, elected by the people rather than appointed by the government, to audit the state Legislature. This effort aims to make Beacon Hill (Massachusetts state government) more transparent, but it didn’t pass because of intense rejection and legal and political concerns from Beacon Hill.

• Prof. Evan Horowitz from Tufts analyzed that once this ballot passes, we can expect to see more financial and administrative records from government offices and lawmakers made public for people to access, including procurement, event budgets, finalized contracts, and staff settlement payouts.

• The important thing is, opening this right to the public is not hard and doesn’t require much financial support to implement this change. 

CONS

• The Secretary of State retrieves the information under the executive branch. If a legislative body refused to retrieve it, questions would arise about who can sue the executive branch, and this could cause a separation or legitimacy crisis among the 3 legislative bodies in the state.

• The Public Records Law technically applies only to requests for information, but many people use it to send routine correspondence directly to the government and often include political views, complaints about local conflicts, or criticism of legislators in their requests. These messages are technically not protected under the Public Records Law and can be leaked.

• MA State legislators have long opposed enacting laws through citizen voting like Question 1 and are pushing for an alternative solution, where governor public records requests will still be fulfilled, but the process is handled by a state-appointed archivist instead of the executive branch, and when there is a disagreement regarding file retrieval rights, you can only file a lawsuit in the MA state court.

Massachusetts Currently: Public attorneys can not create a union to discuss issues regarding pay, hours, working conditions, and more. 

This is because CPCS is under the judicial branch, and when it forms a union to bargain over pay, hours, and working conditions, it must directly confront the executive branch. Branches of government are carefully balanced to maintain equilibrium; each branch cannot dominate another or create a boss-employer relationship between each other. 

On Legal terms, CPCS has always been excluded from the State Labor Law because the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and Chapter 150A have strictly defined who can form labor unions and limited “Employees” to explicitly exclude the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ political subdivisions from being under the definition of a covered "employer," defining this word to apply only to the private sector (non-government organizations), or only to a limited number of the frontline entry-level employees of the executive branch. 

Question 2: This proposed law would specify that employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (“CPCS”) to engage in collective bargaining with their employer. It would also require CPCS, after executing a collective bargaining agreement, to request the appropriation necessary to appropriate the funds necessary to fund the agreement.

A YES VOTE would specify that Committee for Public Counsel Services employees may form a union to collectively bargain with their employer.

A NO VOTE would make no change to the law governing labor relations for Committee for Public Counsel Services employees.

Explanation:

 Public attorneys cannot form a union to discuss issues like pay, hours, working conditions, and more. Question 2 allows them to create a union.

Pros: 

• Attorneys will have a fair chance to get the treatment they deserve in all aspects of their job, including but not limited to pay, hours, PTO, treatment, and working conditions. 

• They can fight for better treatment if they are treated unfairly and have people who will back them up because they can unionize as a group.

• They have been trying to form a union for years, and if passed they would finally be able to.

Cons: 

• State finances could change significantly; we don't know yet whether that would be a negative or positive change, but the state's finances would be altered a lot, which would bring lots of new systems. It would be hard to predict. 

• It could “Disrupt existing management and supervisory frameworks, introduce ambiguity into lines of authority, and create operational inefficiencies.” Because the amount of cases CPCS need to handle flctuates a lot, the existence of a union contrast would limit the flexibility when deploying staff in the provision of legal service to the poor.

Currently, Healey is campaigning hard in Southern MA. The area will most likely be the deciding factor in the governor's race, being that it is the only area in MA that swings red or blue. Current polls swing heavily in favor of Healey, but there have been no polls completed in Southern MA, meaning that public opinion is currently relatively unclear.

What is the Role of a Governor?

Governors are, in many ways, State presidents. Governors:

• Oversee laws and policies

• Veto legislature

• Approve state budgets

• Act as liaison to the federal government

• Appoint department heads

• Oversee the governors council, which is a council made up of elected representatives from each district. 

• Have the final say in emergency situations

• File executive orders

• Are the commander in chief of state militias

• Deploy the National Guard in emergency situations

How are Governors elected in MA?

Governors hold a four-year tenure and are elected at every midterm. They do not have term limits. Currently, governors are elected in a two-party primary and then a general election, but changing that to a no-party primary is on the midterm ballot under question 3.

Why is Southern MA Republican?

Historically, all of MA has been strongly democrat leaning, but also moderate, with many districts swinging Republican or Democratic depending on the year. However, more and more MA towns are becoming polarized, with Republican areas sliding more strongly republican, and democratic areas becoming more strongly democratic. The 1987 Senate voting map in MA looked like a mosaic of colors, a majority of them blue, with red scattered around the map without a clear pattern, with most counties not leaning strongly in one direction or another. 

https://i0.wp.com/commonwealthbeacon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/1982Senate.ashx____imgx.jpg?w=780&ssl=1

The 2013 MA senate map looked very different. The areas surrounding Boston are leaning strongly republican, indicating that there has been a strong shift in the ethos of the greater Boston area. 

https://i0.wp.com/commonwealthbeacon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2013Senate.ashx____imgx.jpg?w=780&ssl=1

Southern MA represents a population that is becoming alienated from the democratic party. Southern MA is significantly less wealthy on average, with the average rent price in the New Bedford-Fall River area being around $1,700 a month as compared to Boston’s $3,300 a month average. According to a Boston Globe article, “Residents in many of the region’s lower-income and working-class communities, they say, feel forgotten by the State House, where Democrats have long wielded power, helping to hasten the shift rightward.” Low-income Bay Staters no longer feel like the Democratic Party represents them. They feel as if the party that claims to want to help them hasn't made any real impact for a long period of time. Republican rhetoric becomes appealing when your plights aren’t being heard, because it blames issues on a group of people, not an institution as a whole. Despite Mike Minouge’s claims that Healey isn’t good for the working class, she has, in fact, made changes that benefit low-income families and actually go against typical democratic politics. In 2023, she signed the first tax cuts in 20 years to provide more savings for seniors, families, businesses, and renters. However, those fixes weren’t enough, and Southern MA residents need to cling to a solution. In a CBS interview last year, the head of the Massachusetts Republican Party stated: “I think that many blue-collar working Americans and working residents of Massachusetts are looking for a party that’s responsive to their needs, and that’s a party that is paying attention to the economy and is also a little more socially conservative than we’re seeing in the policies off of Beacon Hill.” A mix of economic struggles and progressive ideology is causing more and more centrist blue collar democrats to swing Republican, and that’s going to be a problem for Maura Healey. 

Haley Stevens has some reasons for her endorsment of Mike Rogers;

“Abdul said that I was no longer welcome in his campaign and that I should stay away. And he’s right,”

Stevens said in a video posted to social media on Sunday after she appeared at a Detroit church alongside Rogers.

“And that’s why I am endorsing Mike Rogers for the United States Senate today,” she said. “Who we are as Michiganders is not hate, and it is not what we are getting out from our Democratic nominee right now.”

The Democratic party didn't take much time to respond to this nomination. Top Democratic politicians have backed and enforçed doctor Abdul El-Sayed, unifying the party in a way.

34-time convicted felon President Donald J. Trump has reacted to this endorsement;

“Wow, this is BIG! Congresswoman Haley Stevens, a Highly Respected Democrat, who narrowly lost in the Primary to Abdul Mohamed El-Sayed, and who has been breathlessly wined and dined by the Dumocrats to help in their Michigan Campaign for the United States Senate against Mike Rogers, has just ENDORSED Mike Rogers for Senate!” post to Truth Social.

“Her following is huge, and the level of respect from the People of Michigan, especially our African American and Jewish populations, is virtually unparalleled. Haley said what few people are willing to say,” the president continued.

Trump added that Stevens “showed great and almost unprecedented loyalty to the Great People of Michigan with what she did.”

“It’s a thing called bravery, and few people have it like just displayed by Congresswoman Haley Stevens!”

Election day is on November 3rd.

https://www.wamc.org/news/2026-10-14/recap-massachusetts-u-s-senate-debate-between-markey-deaton

How do we know this information? Throughout campaigns, SuperPACs and candidates must submit expenditure reports. SuperPACs and candidates operate under different rules for these reports. During the campaign, a candidate must submit a report every time there is a deposit into their campaign account. And every month the bank submits a report of all the spending made, the candidate must then justify those expenses. Some other reports must be made at specific intervals, but are a lot less important. SuperPACs operate differently; up until 20 days(although sometimes 10) before the election, SuperPACs must submit a report every 7 days detailing the money that was spent. During times close to the election (10-20 days until 24 before), they must submit an expenditure report every 24 hours. These reports are available online for anyone to see what they spend their money on. 

The article talks about where the money went and its effects. Where do candidates and Super PACs spend their money? Most of the money from SuperPACs goes into advertising. Have you ever seen an ad about the election but it doesn't have the candidate in it? That is most likely from a SuperPAC. They can’t work with the candidate to make an ad, so they often will use pictures and a narrator. These ads(the ones made by SuperPACs) have to have a disclaimer that they are an Independent Expenditure Political Action Committee, and will often say this in lettering on the bottom of the screen, often saying “paid for by (IEPAC) not endorsed by (candidate)”. Advertising is one of the largest expenditures because it can help bring voters in, and oftentimes it is incredibly cheap to do so.

https://www.ocpf.us/Data/GovernorElection

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/fundraising-campaign/  

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/ 

https://www.ocpf.us/Legal/ContributionLimits 

https://www.ocpf.us/filers?q=19431 

https://www.ocpf.us/filers?q=81161 

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/filing-pac-reports/24-hour-reports/

This proposed law would permit eligible individuals to register to vote or update their voter registration address on Election Day.

Question number four pertains to the deadline for voter registration, currently in Massachusetts you have to register to vote ten days before election day. A yes vote on question four would allow voters to register on voting day itself. Supporters of question four argue that it would increase voter turnout and participation in democracy, and prevent people who want to vote from losing their opportunity to do so. Studies have indicated slight increases in Black/Brown voter turnout in states with SDR. There is no organized opposition to question four; however, some concerns have been raised about question four increasing the workload of poll workers and slowing down polling locations.

This proposed law would establish 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. After July 1, 2028, the Nature for All Fund would begin receiving, subject to appropriation by the Legislature, 100% of state taxes collected on the sale and use of sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses. The sales tax revenue received by the Nature for All Fund would exclude sales tax revenue transferred to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority State and Local Contribution Fund and the School Modernization and Reconstruction Trust Fund. The proposed law would allow the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs to spend the money in the Nature for All Fund for natural resource conservation.

The proposed law would allow public and private donations to the Nature for All Fund. The proposed law would prevent the state comptroller from transferring surplus funds in the Nature for All Fund at the end of the fiscal year. It would also allow state agencies, municipalities, public charities involved in natural resource conservation, tribal governments, and other regional public entities to receive money from the Nature for All 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. Natural resource conservation would also include the creation, improvement, and management of parks, trails, greenspaces or outdoor recreation access.

The proposed law would establish a 15-member Nature for All Board that consists of five state officials and ten members of the public appointed by the Governor. The proposed law would require the ten members of the public to include representatives of underserved communities and indigenous peoples and at least one person with expertise or experience in natural resource conservation. The proposed law would allow the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs to spend money from the Nature for All Fund to hire staff to manage the fund. The proposed law would also require the Nature for All Board to establish rules about how the money in the Nature for All Fund should be spent, including rules regarding alignment with environmental justice principles, access to and restoration of lands and natural resources of indigenous cultural significance, promotion of affordable housing development, and other matters regarding spending and bond issuance.

The proposed law would require the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs to submit an annual report to various state committees regarding the funds spent to buy or improve land in cities and towns containing environmental justice populations.

The proposed law would take effect on July 1, 2027.

Question 6 would allocate tax revenue to nature conservation. It would do this by increasing the budget for nature conservation to upwards of 100 millions dollars. The state of Massachusetts has vowed to increase its protected lands to 30% by 2030 and this budget would contribute to that. The supporters of this question say passing this question would increase job opportunities in Massachusetts, based around the outdoor recreation industry, and would grow the economy. Most of the opposition to question 6 comes from how the money would be set aside for conservation. Some opposers say there are more important, pressing, uses for the money, such as food programs, and medicaid. Another part of the opposition to the ballot measure is based on how the money is set aside, less than that money is set aside. Putting the money aside, in the way the ballot measures, creates potential difficulties in the future if more money is needed for the conservation. The ballot question passing doesn't necessarily mean the money put into the Nature For All Fund is forced to be spent on conservation.

Background Information

Massachusetts’ Senate race is being contested by the 80-year-old Democratic incumbent Ed Markey, and the Republican challenger, John Deaton, who also ran in the 2024 Senate election against Elizabeth Warren. Markey defeated House representative Seth Moulton in the Sept. 1 Democratic primary, while Deaton ran unopposed in the Republican primary. There are two additional candidates on the general election ballot: Joe Tache of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and Independent Shiva Ayyadurai.

Senate Debate: Where do the candidates stand?

The Massachusetts Senate debate was held on October 13th between Ed Markey and John Deaton. Both Joe Tache and Shiva Ayyadurai requested to participate in the debate, but WBZ refused, limiting the debate to just Markey and Deaton. 

During the debate, the two candidates were asked about their stances on healthcare and affordability policy, presidential impeachment, war and foreign intervention, NIH funding and energy, Supreme Court reform, and AI regulation. In the following pages, each candidate’s responses to the questions will be summarized. Other major arguments will also be included.

Here's a list of all the questions asked during the debate:

Would a single-payer Medicare for All system help with medical costs?

Would you support or oppose going forward with impeachment proceedings against President Trump?

What is your definition of a legitimate reason for the US to go to war? Can you name a US military intervention since World War II that fits your definition?

What argument would you make to a Republican NIH administrator to help reverse the current policy of diverting NIH money from blue states to red states?

Should expanding the Supreme Court be tried again? Why or why not?

Should courts be able to hold AI companies liable for harm that their models cause?

Read the full document for the debate breakdown and context! The candidates' answers to each question are summarized and context is given for each question asked.

Resources:

Full Debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzYH5j1f7xo

Ed Markey’s Campaign Page: https://www.edmarkey.com/ 

John Deaton’s Campaign Page: https://www.johndeatonforsenate.com/ 

Joe Tache’s Campaign Page: https://www.tache4ma.com/ 

Shiva Ayyadurai’s Campaign Page: https://shiva4senate.com/

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/polls/massachusetts-us-senate-election-polls-2026.html 

https://scholars.unh.edu/survey_center_polls/1008/ 

https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_election_in_Massachusetts,_2026

Mike Minogue has been quoted saying “I’ll cut energy bills by a third” and he promises to do this by eliminating climate taxes that he states “have nothing to do with how much energy you actually use”. Minogue also said he is going to abolish the “unfunded, unenforceable Net Zero mandate” which is a policy to reduce greenhouse gases. The gas tax is another tax that Mike Minogue promises to eliminate and he plans to recuperate funds by auditing the state budget.

The energy crisis has given potential voters an opportunity to see how the current administration handles issues involving troubling financial times as well as an energy deficit. It has also provided a platform for candidates to make grand promises to the general public that don’t necessarily have to be followed through with. Voters might be swayed to Healey because of her attributing the rising prices to external factors while some voters might be swayed to Minogue because of his bold policies and addressing accountability towards local government.  

https://www.bostonherald.com/2026/10/05/energy-emergency-fires-up-massachusetts-governors-race/ 

Question 3 asks whether Massachusetts should eliminate party primaries and switch to all-party primaries. Switching to all-party primaries would put all candidates on one ballot, with the top two advancing to the general election, even if both are from the same party.  

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST:

FOR: All voters get meaningful participation. In heavily Democratic Massachusetts districts, the Democratic primary pretty much determines the eventual officeholder. A Republican or independent voter currently has little practical influence over which Democrat becomes the representative. Under a top-two system, everyone participates in the same candidate-selection process. It might also reward politicians who can appeal beyond their party’s base.

AGAINST: Parties exist partly to choose their own nominees. Under this system, voters who aren’t Democrats can help determine which Democrat advances, and same for Republicans. It can also eliminate ideological or minor-party choice from the general ballot: if two Democrats finish first and second, November voters get two Democrats. Additionally, a party with many candidates can divide its vote, potentially allowing another party to capture both advancement slots despite having fewer supporters overall.

EFFECTS OF BEING PASSED OR NOT BEING PASSED:

PASSED: If passed, question 3 will most likely increase competitiveness between candidates and make it harder for someone like Ed Markey to hold office for decades at a time. When the general election is actually competitive, and not necessarily democrat vs. republican., the two (most likely democrat) candidates are actually competing for office. However, it also increases the possibility of two republican candidates advancing to the general election. If there are two republican candidates and twenty democratic candidates, the republican candidates are guaranteed to get more votes, just because of the fact that there are so few candidates. Even if only 20% of MA votes red, each republican candidate could possibly get 10% of the vote, while each democratic candidate only gets 4%. Question 3 would also make it possible for non-democratic or republican aligned candidates to get elected. Currently, with the one-party primary system, it is very difficult for someone aligned with a different party to get into the general election.

NOT PASSED: If question three isn’t passed, everything will stay the way it is. Competitiveness will continue to decrease, meaning that the incumbent will have no motivation for progress. However, it will not be possible for an unpopular party to secure both candidates in the general election.

Question 5 asks whether or not a current law (Chapter 62) should be updated to pay back taxpayers if/when the state exceeds its fiscal limit. It asks whether to lower the cap on the government's tax revenue, which would, in turn, lead to more tax rebates. 

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST:

FOR: If Massachusetts’s economy and residents’ wages are growing at, for example, 3-4%, some would argue state tax collections should not indefinitely grow much faster than that without excess money being returned. It acts as an automatic fiscal restraint, especially in super strong revenue years. Many who support it describe it as strengthening an existing taxpayer protection and don't believe it is inventing an entirely new one.

AGAINST: Government costs do not necessarily track wage growth. Healthcare, education, infrastructure, debt service or an emergency could grow faster. A stricter cap may therefore cause tax refunds during periods when the government still has legitimate uses for the money. It also reduces the state’s ability to accumulate reserves during very strong years and spend those reserves during recessions. Including millionaires-surtax revenue is also controversial because voters constitutionally dedicated that revenue to transportation and education. Counting it toward a broader revenue ceiling could indirectly result in other revenue having to be refunded.

EFFECTS OF BEING PASSED OR NOT BEING PASSED:

Passed: Passing question 5 will base the rebate system on the state revenue every year, instead of the rebate cap from the year prior. The problem is, the line for the rebate cap can only go up every year, not go down. If passed, citizens of Massachusetts will get far more rebates. Meaning more income for the individual citizen. However, question five will take that money for rebates from state funding for schools, hospitals, etc. There will be no security blanket for the state in case of a financially difficult year, meaning that if the economy takes a downturn Massachusetts will be in financial trouble. It is also most likely that the house will rewrite the law to make it less impactful.

Not passed: If not passed, everything will stay the same. Rebates will not increase and will continue to be based on previous year’s caps. The state will continue to be able to raise taxes and collect money how they wish.

The Question 9 ballot initiative responds to a gun restriction law passed in July 2024, “An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws,” which increases regulations on firearms, including ghost guns, machine guns, and assault-style weapons. Question 9 is the only referendum this year, meaning it is not introducing a new law but rather putting the decision on whether to repeal an existing law up to a vote. A “yes” vote will keep the 2024 gun restriction law in place, while a “No” vote would repeal this law.

Changes made by “An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws”:

1. Ghost guns (homemade firearms) require a serial number

1. Expanded definition of an “assault-style firearm”

2. Added regulations on products that can make semiautomatic firearms work like automatic ones

3. Massachusetts gun owner have to register all their firearms by Oct 28, 2026

4. Expanded “red flag laws,” which allow healthcare workers and school administrators to ask courts to confiscate firearms from whom they consider a threat to themselves or others - this court order is called an Extreme Risk Protection Order.

5. Banned guns from polling places, schools, and government buildings, with some exceptions. 

6. Included new materials for firearm safety courses for anyone applying for a gun permit. 

The law was pushed through via an emergency order from Governor Maura Healey

Supporting arguments:

The supporting argument is that gun violence is preventable with the 2024 gun restriction law. With the hope that Massachusetts can help influence the rest of the U.S., Yes on 9 For a Safe MA is a campaign supported by multiple Massachusetts organizations, mainly the Massachusetts Teachers Association. They argue that “we have one of the lowest gun death rates in the country because we’ve taken action with an effective combination of strong gun safety laws, community-led solutions, and evidence-based research,” showing that this legislation would reshape how we combat gun violence. This law is also shown to be effective, as Massachusetts is one of the highest-scoring states on the GIFFORDS Gun Law scorecard, meaning the state has enacted and upheld comprehensive gun safety and regulation laws.

Opposing arguments:

Before the 2024 law, Massachusetts “ already had some of the strictest gun laws in the country.” They argue that passing without an enforcement plan is a waste of tax dollars and forces police departments to act upon vague rules. Also, there is a concern that it could continue to pull officers away from investigations of other violent crimes and create excessive paperwork for officers. Since gun rights are civil rights, many citizens feel this law would prevent them from protecting themselves. A common concern is that once one law loses its credibility, there is a strong worry that the validity of others will come into question. Toby Leary is a chairman of The Civil Rights Coalition, highlights this concern, stating, “If you allow the right to keep and bear arms to be eroded, then every other civil right enumerated in our Bill of Rights could just as easily be taken away.” While many support this legislation, many who are against this legislation do so because the law was originally ushered into effect through an emergency order from Governor Maura Healey. One opposing argument Gun rights activists are making is that, by continuing the 2024 law, it would set a precedent for future laws to be taken into effect through an emergency preamble, bypassing the 90-day waiting period.

Donation/funding information can be found in the linked Google Doc.

Resources:

https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_9,_Firearm_Regulations_Referendum_%282026%29 - this one had a lot of info!

https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/10/06/massachusetts-firearms-question-9-guns-ballot-control-rights

https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/research-and-statistics/2026-information-for-voters/2026-ballot-question9.htm

This video covers the primary race for the U.S. Senate position within the Democrats' Party between Ed Markey and Seth Moulton. The two candidates debated over topics such as transgender girls in sports, housing, healthcare, PAC donations, financial disclosures, etc. While this election within the party has already ended with Senator Ed Markey winning with a turnout of 64.8% (Moulton with a turnout of 35.2%), this video is still relevant as it gives context for the upcoming general election where the main race lies between Ed Markey (Democrat) and John Deaton (Republican). It also demonstrates what people are thinking about when considering whom they are voting for.

A recurrent theme of what’s on the voters' minds includes the shortage of housing/housing affordability. Governor Maura Healey also reflects people’s struggles with the cost of living. A phrase the video used was that voters typically “vote with their wallets.” This concern directly connects to Massachusetts Ballot Question 7, which, if it passes, would allow single-family homes to be built on lots of at least 5,000 square feet, whereas currently more than half of Massachusetts properties had to be built on plots of at least 40,000 square feet. Supporters argue that this will allow “starter homes” rather than having builders being incentivized to "build a giant McMansion just to justify the cost of assembling so much land." Opponents argue that dividing land into smaller plots does not take into consideration the town’s capacity for water and sewer requirements. 

This video also shows how primaries tend to draw a narrower crowd than general elections, and the overcast, rainy weather conditions even lowered the number of walk-up votes. It is still critical for people to use their votes because it is a privilege and not a right. Nowhere in our Constitution is voting an official right. The 15th and 19th Amendments only stated that the right to vote “shall not be denied or abridged” “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude” and “on account of sex.” “Shall not be denied or abridged” is important language because it is a negative right rather than directly giving the right to vote to citizens of the United States. 

The video also suggests that a major discussion of the U.S. Senate contest will be focused on the Trump administration. A major argument Ed Markey (D) is making is by referring to John Deaton (R) as a MAGA Republican who will be a blank check for Donald Trump, while Deaton states that he is not that type of Republican. The question lingers with this campaign strategy. As voters, it is important to consider if we are voting for the parties or the candidates. This is exactly what Massachusetts Ballot Question 3 aims to address. The current Massachusetts primary contest has Democrats facing Democrats and Republicans facing Republicans in partisan primaries before November. Then, the winners of the respective primaries would compete in a general election in November. Voters can only vote in one of the primary races (whether they registered with a specific party or not). Question 3 would change this system to have an “all-party primary,” which means having one ballot of all candidates regardless of the party they represent. Supporters of Question 3 say it will increase the competitiveness of Massachusetts opponents argue the opposite — question 3 will not increase competition — that it will make it “harder for grassroots candidates to win.”

Sources:

Massachusetts primary election: https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/video/latest-details-on-key-races-in-massachusetts-primary-election/

Markey and Moulton debate: https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/08/04/debate-markey-moulton-fact-checks-senate-massachusetts

Ed Markey and John Deaton debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1r-6j-XvGs

Massachusetts Primary Results: https://apps.npr.org/primary-election-results-2026/states/MA.html

Massachusetts Ballot Question 7: https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/10/07/massachusetts-election-ballot-question-7-starter-homes-small-lots

Voting Not in the Constitution: https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/10/19/the-right-to-vote-is-not-in-the-constitution/

15th Amendment: 

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xv

19th Amendment: https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xix/interpretations/145

Massachusetts Ballot Question 3: https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/10/05/massachusetts-question-3-top-two-state-primary-elections

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026?

Source*

Summary:

Question 8 focuses on the legal status of marijuana. 10 years ago, the sale of recreational marijuana was legalized by voters in the 2016 midterm elections. 

Question 8 proposes repealing this change and no longer allowing recreational marijuana to be sold legally in Massachusetts

Pro's:

• Illegalization of recreational marijuana prevents citizens from having easy access to harmful drugs that, at the same time, could prevent likely-smokers to start getting addicted.

• Marijuana usage increases negative health problems (including negative impacts on mental health) for the consumers. If it remains legal, consumers are at risk of these negative side-effects.

Con's:

• This ballot question raises concerns that consider the safety of citizens. Illegalizing the recreational mairjuana market would most definitely create a newly unsupervised black market. 

• Sales of marijuana would not be as safe, some of these could contain other substances (like fentanyl) that puts the buyer's life at risk.

• A market so big as the recreational marijuana market cannot be shut down with a law like this. People would not stop buying recreational marijuana. The main difference would regard safety while buying the drug.

Impact if not passed:

• Recreational marijuana will continue to be legal to purchase in the state of MA. The law would not change.

Impact if passed:

• The purchase of recreational marijuana will be illegal in the state of MA.

Additional sources:

• https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/video/massachusetts-ballot-question-8-could-reverse-course-on-ma/

• https://www.wcvb.com/article/massachusetts-2026-ballot-question-8-retail-marijuana/74099424

• https://whdh.com/news/what-to-know-before-voting-on-massachusetts-9-ballot-questions/

A question for readers to think about while reading this article: How do we make sure that early voters will learn more about the questions they are being asked to vote on prior to stepping foot into the polls?

Voting is a right, and so by creating spaces and places where individuals can learn as much as they can before stepping foot into the polls, we will create informed voters.

https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2026-10-29/massachusetts-ballot-questions-are-confusing-and-overwhelming-for-early-voters

Maura Healey is a member of the democratic party and is an American Lawyer and politician who has been serving as the 73rd Governor of Massachusetts since January 2023. She supports a decrease in housing and the cost of living and, through the Affordable Homes Act, is trying to eliminate certain fees and taxes.

Mike Minogue is a Republican candidate and was previously a part of the U.S. Army. He intends to prevent overspending, which leads to overtaxing and overregulation. His intention is to create more transparency for citizens and provide available funding while staying within the budget and creating revenue. 

Question 1 explores what the parties can do to lower the cost of living in Massachusetts due to its high cost of living. Governor Healey argued that Trump is driving up costs, while she aims to cut taxes and build 100,000 houses while cutting copays overall, blaming tariffs and federal policies. Mike Minogue argues that Massachusetts suffers from overspending, overtaxing, and over-regulating. His solution is cutting gas taxes, utility fees, and providing educational tax credits.

It’s important to note that in How Americans Voted in 2024 Explore the results of the election by race, gender, age and education by the New York Times highlighted that in the 2024 election the Democratic Party was shifting towards some of the Republican Party's views, Mike Minogue may want to use this shift in momentum in his favor. In 2020, the shift toward Republican views became much more prominent. The group of people of color was smaller and had slightly shifted towards republican views even though they were largely in the democratic party. However, during the 2024 election, people of color seemed to come in masses to vote and prominently shifted ideologies towards the democratic party. It's common to see people who aren’t happy with candidates not vote, but if they are unhappy with how the government is run, people who might not have voted during the election might vote in the midterms and the next election to shift the government. Even though the 2024 shifted republican during 2024, it’s likely the shift will change. During this debate, there is a possibility that Maura Healey kept blaming Trump for the instability in Massachusetts to incentivise people of color and other demographics to vote during the midterm elections. 

additional sources:

https://apnews.com/article/midterms-trump-voting-election-interference-85ad12449d5900e74bece6df6d8d52d5#

Political advertisements are sometimes designed simply to explain what a candidate believes, but they can also be designed to change how voters perceive other candidates. In the 2026 Massachusetts governor's race, a super PAC (political action committee) supporting Republican candidate Mike Minogue has been running advertisements criticizing independent candidate Andrea James. Rather than focusing entirely on Minogue's main opponent, Governor Maura Healey, the advertisements describe James as a socialist and associate her with progressive New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani. Why would a political organization spend money attacking a candidate who is not its main opponent? One possible explanation is that the organization wants progressive voters who might otherwise support Healey to consider voting for James instead. Since James has more progressive positions than Healey on some issues, she could potentially attract some of Healey's supporters, splitting Healey’s votes between two candidates.

What is a super PAC?

A super political action committee is an organization that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose political candidates. However, it cannot legally coordinate its spending with the candidates' campaigns. This differs from traditional PACs. which can donate directly to candidates, but have limits on how much they can contribute.

This is important because super PACs can spend millions of dollars on advertisements that influence elections without being officially part of a candidate's campaign, so this limit is less of a catch than it seems. 

What should voters consider?

When watching political advertisements, it is important to be aware of who paid for them, what information they include, and what information they leave out. For example, calling someone a socialist does not explain their actual policies. Looking at their positions on specific issues is necessary to fully understand what the voter is voting for. Before voting for a candidate solely based on what you have seen in advertisements, do some in depth research on the candidate be willing to challenge your own assumptions, and consider perspectives that may differ from what you have seen in political advertisements.

Reilly, Adam. “Why Is a Pro-Mike Minogue Super PAC Targeting Mass. Governor Candidate Andrea James?” GBH News, 21 Oct. 2026, https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2026-10-21/why-is-a-pro-mike-minogue-super-pac-targeting-mass-governor-candidate-andrea-james

Federal Election Commission. “Political Action Committees (PACs).” FEC, https://www.fec.gov/press/resources-journalists/political-action-committees-pacs/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfEc4d1ZDqo

Jason Turkish has identified himself as a “lifelong Democrat” and he has donated to multiple Democratic campaigns. Hayley Stevens describes her husband as a “real political junkie” according to this New York Times article (King 2026). He is active in Michigan's pro-Isreal groups and he is also a donor to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Jason Turkish is also a managing partner at a disability right law firm with offices in California, Florida and Michigan. (Mesa 2026). He has been legally blind since birth and is passionate about making changes to the bar exam to help blind test-takers.

One of the reasons Jason Turkish and Hayley Stevens have decided to support Mike Rodgers over the Democratic primary winner, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, is because of Dr. Sayed’s outspoken criticisms towards Israel as an ally to the U.S. Jason Turkish and Hayley Stevens said they would stay faithful to their party originally but after Dr. Sayed won the primary elections they have turned their support to Mike Rodgers. (King 2026) 

After Hayley Stevens turned her support to Mike Rogers she did not go on social media, her Fiancé however was actively checking what people were saying about Hayley Stevens and reporting back to her. According to CNN members of Hayley's party speculate that Jason Turkish’s involvement in her political career influenced her to support Mike Rogers. To that she says “My fiancé has his own views. I have mine,” she wrote. “I made this decision, and I am proud of it. Do not question my independence simply because you disagree with my conclusion.” (Brander, Svitek, and Ferris, n.d., #) This skepticism towards Jason Turkish was also rooted in the fact the he has previously donated money to the campaign of Susan Collins who is a republican US senator for the state of Maine.  

References

King, Maya. 2026. “Who Is Jason Turkish, Haley Stevens's Fiancé?” The New York Times, November 2, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/11/02/us/politics/jason-turkish-haley-stevens-fiance.html.

Mesa, Jesus. 2026. “Who Is Haley Stevens’s Fiancé? Jason Turkish Under Scrutiny.” Newsweek, November 02, 2026.

https://www.newsweek.com/haley-stevens-fiance-jason-turkish-campaign-12651575

Brander, Eric, Patrick Svitek, and Sarah Ferris. n.d. “‘He would wind her up’: Democratic anger at Haley Stevens’ fiancé boils over after her endorsement reversal.” CNN Politics.

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/11/02/politics/jason-turkish-haley-stevens-michigan-senate-mike-rogers-abdul-el-sayed