Massachusetts is on track to shatter its own record for ballot questions in a single election, with up to 11 measures potentially going before voters in November if they survive court fights and pointed legislative antagonism.
Eleven citizen-led initiative petitions cleared the signature-gathering threshold and were certified by the secretary of state’s office earlier this year, joining a gun law repeal referendum that was already guaranteed a spot on the ballot. The Legislature, which had until the first Wednesday in May to pass any of the 11 initiative petitions outright, recommended no action on any of the measures — the same approach it took two years ago.
The Supreme Judicial Court heard challenges this week to four of the initiative petitions. If the court finds issues with the measures, it could either remove them from the ballot entirely or order a correction to the language. The SJC generally issues rulings within 130 days of oral arguments; last cycle, the court didn’t hand down its final word until June.
The high court also weighed in with advisory rulings on two other ballot measures at the request of the Legislature, which has been chafing against the ever-expanding suite of ballot initiative petitions.
Its opinion that a measure creating new rules for legislative stipends was not appropriate for the ballot led Attorney General Andrea Campbell and the secretary of state’s office to block the initiative this week.
Campaigns now face a July deadline to collect an additional 12,429 signatures to lock in a spot on the ballot, even those whose questions are at risk of being tossed by the high court.
Here is where each of the surviving 11 measures stands.
Rent control revival
This campaign, led by affordable housing and tenant advocacy groups, would reverse Massachusetts’s 1994 voter-approved ban on rent control and impose a strict statewide cap on rent increases. Supporters say the measure would give renters — particularly low-income and long-term residents — protection against displacement in one of the country’s most expensive housing markets. Opponents, including real estate industry groups, warn that rent caps suppress new construction and that applying the policy statewide, rather than giving cities and towns discretion, would be too restrictive and dangerous to local economies.
The referendum has split progressives on whether it represents the best approach to stabilize rents, but most are climbing onboard the effort – some enthusiastically and some fearing that if the measure fails it will set rent control efforts back decades.
The SJC heard oral arguments on a challenge to the question on Wednesday. Opponents argue that Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s summary of the petition is inaccurate and that the initiative would create an unconstitutional taking by depriving landlords of the full market value of their property. They also say that the measure involves multiple unrelated provisions – something not permitted on ballot questions – and specific issues that are not allowed to be subject to ballot questions. In this case, one issue is whether by exempting units owned by religious institutions from the rent caps, the question unconsitutionally puts religion on the ballot.
But justices seemed doubtful that religion was much more than an example of possible non-profit uses, as the ballot measure also exempts housing at educational institutions and non-profits more broadly. They worried that the implication of the argument is that any measure that invokes religion at all would be barred from the ballot, which Justice Scott Kafker said “seems big.”
But there is one obvious thing cutting in favor of the plaintiffs, Justice Elizabeth Dewar noted: the petition explicitly references religious uses. If justices interpreted the rule to mean that religion can be specifically included as long as the matter isn’t “controversially about religion,” she noted, that could create a world of confusion for the courts and also the attorney general’s office in trying to figure out if a petition should be certified.
Income tax rate cut
A business-backed coalition is asking voters to slash the state’s flat personal income tax rate from 5 percent to 4 percent over three years. Proponents argue the cut would relieve the state’s high cost of living and reverse outmigration. Opponents warn the measure could cost the state more than $5 billion in annual revenue once fully implemented and force cuts to essential state services.
The question has become the most heated flashpoint in this cycle over the use of ballot measures to create policy. While legislative leaders slam the proposal and openly weigh the possibility of some sort of dealmaking with proponents, they are also watching to see if the SJC hands them a ticket out of the whole mess.
The court heard oral arguments Monday on a challenge to the ballot summary written by AG Campbell’s office. The summary, opponents of the measure argue, seems to assert inaccurately that capital gains would not be impacted by the tax cut, so people who signed the papers to bring the question to the ballot did not understand what they were advancing.
Justice Kafker said the summary was “bothersome to me, because my reading of that is capital gains is not included. It’s not just a material omission, in [the plaintiff’s] view, it’s a material misrepresentation.”
The issue, if justices agree the summary is fundamentally flawed, is what to do about it. Justice Serge Georges Jr. wanted to know why the court should keep a petition from the ballot entirely rather than say “back to the drawing board” and let them collect signatures with a corrected summary. Opponents of the measure, and the AG’s office, told the court that because the constitutional timeline for submitting the bulk of signatures has passed, the entire thing should be struck from the ballot if the summary is “so unfair to the voters.”
Mandatory tax rebates (Chapter 62F overhaul)
The coalition behind the income tax change is also pushing a second fiscal question, this one targeting the state’s tax collection cap. The proposal would tweak a law enacted by voters in 1986, known as Chapter 62F, which requires the state to return money to taxpayers when revenues surpass a certain threshold. Under the question, Beacon Hill would be more likely to bump into that cap, limiting how much the state can collect and forcing more frequent rebates.
Supporters say the change would restore the original intent of the law and provide automatic relief when the state runs surpluses. Opponents argue it would make revenue planning more volatile and constrain the state’s ability to fund ongoing programs during the period of federal funding uncertainty.
No court challenge has emerged, and the question is proceeding toward the July signature deadline, though if lawmakers pursue any compromise on the income tax cut, they might be inclined to lump the tax cap reform in as well.
Recriminalizing recreational marijuana
A decade after voters approved the legalization of recreational cannabis, a coalition backed nationally by the anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana is asking them to reverse course. The measure would repeal the laws governing non-medical marijuana distribution and taxation, shutting down the state’s recreational marketplace. Adults aged 21 and older would still be allowed to possess up to one ounce without criminal penalty.
Supporters of the measure say recreational legalization has increased youth access to cannabis, related traffic incidents, and public health harms. Opponents counter that the question would dismantle an industry that has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue and created thousands of jobs, while not actually recriminalizing possession of small amounts of pot.
While the campaign was accused of intentionally misleading voters during the signature-gathering process, the State Ballot Law Commission dismissed an objection to the ballot initiative that was raised on those grounds.
The SJC, considering a lawsuit brought by social equity grant recipients, mulled claims that the AG’s ballot initiative summary was missing features of the petition and that it should not have been certified for containing unrelated policy sections.
Oral arguments on Monday turned on whether provisions requiring young adults between 18 and 21 to attend a drug awareness program if found to be in unlawful possession of marijuana were sufficiently related to the goal of repealing recreational cannabis sales.
Georges explained how the question might fail the relatedness test, reasoning that a voter might favor reversing the legalization vote of 10 years ago but not support the new sanctions the question would impose on young people caught with marijuana.
“It may very well be that the average voter may not necessarily be excited about what happened 10 years ago but is necessarily not signing up for enhanced penalties to folks either,” Georges said.
All-party primaries
This initiative, put forward by the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, would replace the state’s partisan primary system with a single “all-party” primary ballot, where all candidates, regardless of party, appear together and the top two vote-getters advance to the general election.
Supporters argue the system would increase competition and force candidates to appeal beyond their base. Opponents, including Democratic and Republican party organizations, contend it would reduce representation for smaller parties.
A pair of longtime Democratic operatives are challenging the measure in court, arguing it “substantially burdens the right to vote.”
The SJC, in oral arguments Monday, seemed skeptical of claims that there is a constitutional right to partisan elections, which would be undercut by the measure.
“Isn’t this the most equal?” Justice Kafker asked. He added, “If the fundamental principle is equality: equality of the right to vote, and equality of the right to seek office, doesn’t this serve both of those purposes?”
It would, justices noted, be a profound departure from Massachusetts election tradition. And that could further impede the chances for minority parties in a state where Democrats dominate. Justice Georges asked, “This isn’t just a mechanical change, this would be a radical change, wouldn’t it?”
Public records from the governor’s office and Legislature
This initiative, led by state Auditor Diana DiZoglio, would bring both the Legislature and the governor’s office under the existing Public Records Law. It would make most of their records accessible to the public, with exemptions for communications about policy development and constituent service interactions.
The Senate asked the SJC in March whether the question was constitutionally valid, citing concerns that subjecting the Legislature to records obligations would intrude on each chamber’s exclusive authority to set its own rules of proceedings. The House of Representatives joined in as an amicus.
In an advisory opinion issued April 27, the full court concluded the petition properly proposes a law, not a legislative rule.
The justices opined that the principal purpose of the measure is to provide the public a new right of access to records held by the Legislature and the governor’s office, even if it would incidentally affect internal record-keeping practices.
Lawmakers also tried to argue that because those requesting public records can go to court if their requests are denied, the ballot measure involved courts – which are not allowed to be the subject of initiative petitions. But the SJC waved away that concern, because the main design of the question is to provide public access to records. “Any effect on the business of the courts would be ‘merely incidental’ to that purpose,” the SJC concluded.
The court declined to answer the Senate’s remaining three questions on whether the measure infringes on the Senate’s rulemaking authority, violates separation of powers, or implicates legislative immunity. These opinions are not suited for “abstract questions,” the justices wrote, and the Senate’s concerns are better addressed if and when the initiative becomes law and faces a concrete challenge.
Election Day voter registration
Secretary of State William Galvin — who also oversees the ballot process as the state’s chief election official — is leading this campaign himself after years of failing to move the idea through the Legislature. The measure would allow eligible voters to register at their polling place on Election Day, eliminating the current 10-day registration cutoff.
Galvin said the current deadline forces “literally tens of thousands of people” to submit provisional ballots that are ultimately rejected every cycle, disproportionately affecting low-income voters who move frequently and voters of color. Opponents argue same-day registration would complicate election administration and increase the risk of errors.
No court challenge has emerged.
CPCS collective bargaining
The Committee for Public Counsel Services is the state agency that provides legal representation to indigent criminal defendants — overseeing public defenders and the private bar advocates who handle the bulk of indigent caseloads. This labor-backed measure would clear the way for CPCS workers to collectively bargain — a right held by other state agencies but not CPCS.
Versions of this legislation have been filed in at least five consecutive legislative sessions without becoming law. The question does not affect private bar advocates, whose separate pay dispute earlier this year triggered a work stoppage and brought the indigent defense system to a breaking point.
No opposition to the question appeared at a legislative hearing on the matter.
Starter home zoning
The “Legalize Starter Homes” campaign, backed by collection of pro-growth groups led by Pioneer Institute senior housing fellow Andrew Mikula, would prohibit municipalities from requiring minimum lot sizes for single-family homes greater than 5,000 square feet or frontage greater than 50 feet in areas served by public sewer and water.
Supporters say Massachusetts’s particularly high minimum lot-size requirements have suppressed the construction of smaller, lower-cost homes and contributed to the state’s severe housing shortage. Opponents, including some municipal officials and neighborhood groups, argue that by overriding local land use decisions, the change could increase density in areas not equipped to handle it.
Lawmakers expressed frustration at the ballot-focused approach and indicated an eagerness to work with proponents toward a legislative compromise.
Land and water conservation fund
The “Protect Water and Nature” campaign put forward by a group of nonprofits, local land trusts, recreation groups, and outerwear retailers would redirect revenue from the state’s sales tax on sporting goods and outdoor recreational equipment into a dedicated conservation fund.
Proponents say the measure could steer money toward creating outdoor recreational spaces, preserving natural areas, and protecting drinking water — “all without raising taxes,” in the words of campaign supporter Andrew Sharpe.
No opposition spoke at a dedicated hearing on the ballot measure in March.
Gun law repeal
This is the only question already guaranteed to appear on November’s ballot. Gun rights advocates successfully petitioned in fall 2024 to repeal the sweeping gun law passed that summer — the most significant overhaul of Massachusetts firearms regulations in more than a decade. The law tightened regulations on ghost guns, updated the definition of assault weapons, expanded licensing and training requirements, and strengthened enforcement around firearm transfers.
Because the law was enacted late in the term, the repeal question was ineligible for the 2024 ballot and will instead appear in 2026.
Unlike the other 11 measures, this one follows a different procedural track. It is a veto referendum – a citizen-initiated ballot measure that asks voters whether to uphold or repeal an enacted law – and requires no further signature-gathering. The lawmakers who passed it and Gov. Healey, who signed it and later an emergency preamble to prevent initial effort to suspend the law, have indicated eagerness to fight its repeal.
This article first appeared on CommonWealth Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
