This question asks voters whether Massachusetts should extend the public records law to cover the Legislature and governor’s office.
What your vote means
If this passes
The House, Senate, and governor’s office would become subject to the public records law. They would still be able to withhold communications related to assisting constituents or developing policy positions.
If this fails
The status quo, in which the Legislature is completely exempt and the governor’s office can deem itself exempt from requirements to release records on a case-by-case basis, would remain in place.
The breakdown
This ballot question would apply the state’s existing public records law to cover the Legislature, which is currently exempt, and the governor’s office, which is sometimes covered but often declares itself exempt on a case-by-case basis.
Virtually all other government entities — including municipal offices, public school districts, and many offices in the state’s executive branch — are already subject to the public records law, which requires officials to release documents and correspondence in response to requests. The law has some exemptions built in to shield sensitive information like personally identifying details, materials related to developing policy positions, and contract deliberations.
The proposal builds on years of debate over transparency on Beacon Hill. Democratic legislative leaders routinely announce plans to take up major bills, or significantly amended measures, with a day’s notice or less. They often make the most crucial decisions in private meetings, allowing the public only to glimpse votes and perfunctory remarks on matters whose fates have already been sealed behind closed doors.
Diana DiZoglio, a former lawmaker herself, was elected auditor in 2022 and has led a push to force more public scrutiny of the Legislature. Last election cycle, DiZoglio proposed — and 72 percent of voters approved — a ballot question explicitly authorizing her office to audit the Legislature, but no audit has taken place because lawmakers continue to resist a probe, arguing that it would be unconstitutional.
Led by DiZoglio, transparency advocates pitched the public records law expansion as a way to counter Beacon Hill’s secrecy and top-down style of policymaking. Opponents of the ballot measure argue that this transparency reform blurs the constitutional separation of powers and should be made through the Legislature.
Massachusetts is the only state in the nation where the governor’s office, Legislature, and judiciary are all free from public records law requirements.
Effective date
January 1, 2027
What this does NOT change
The judiciary would remain exempt from public records requirements.
How did we get here?
Massachusetts regularly draws criticism for having one of the least transparent state governments in the country. The Society of Professional Journalists awarded Massachusetts its 2026 Black Hole Award, which it describes as “an annual dishonor recognizing government entities that demonstrate a troubling lack of transparency and disregard for the public’s right to know.”
Both the House and Senate have responded to the ballot question with legislative maneuvers that could render it moot. Each branch approved a bill that would apply the existing public records law to the governor’s office, and create a new records framework unique to the Legislature, requiring some materials to become publicly available, but a narrower set than under the ballot question.
The bills also include language that, if included in a final House-Senate compromise, could force the Legislature’s preferred version to supersede the ballot question even if voters approve it. It’s not clear if that trigger will survive private House-Senate negotiations or when a final bill will emerge.
This article first appeared on CommonWealth Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
