A (or One) Skeptic

Question #8 would repeal much of the legalization, regulation, and taxation of the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana. It would also change the penalties for possession of marijuana; it does not, however, change the rules around medical marijuana. Among other things, Question 8 would eliminate:

• The legal and licensed sale and production of recreational marijuana;
• State and local tax collections from the sale of legal marijuana;
• The right to grow marijuana at home;
• The testing regime for recreational marijuana (which helps ensure safety); 
• The plan to allow cannabis bars for on-site consumption;
• Social equity programs connected to marijuana tax revenue and licensing rules.

So, first of all, I’ll note that “prohibition” is never really the answer to an issue like this. I thought we should have learned that between 1920 and 1933 and the 18th and 21st amendments.

But more specifically, the arguments in favor of repeal are simply unsupported by the facts. Dr. Jeffrey Morgan, a retired MD (and the author of the arguments on behalf of the sponsors in the Information for Voters pamphlet), makes the following claims about marijuana and driving:

• Since commercial legalization, marijuana is now the most common drug found in fatal car accidents in Massachusetts;
• 85% of marijuana users admit to driving after and over 50% drive within an hour or less; 
• Business owners have increased costs from higher rates of workplace injuries, increased healthcare costs, and higher turnover;
• For every $1 gained in tax revenue, taxpayers spend $4.50 to mitigate the effects of legalization from societal expenses including increased healthcare, lost productivity, and crime (like DUI’s).

But those claims are simply not supported by the facts. First of all it should be noted:

1. There is currently no test for marijuana impairment;
2. Most fatal accidents in which marijuana was found in the driver’s system also found alcohol in the driver’s system;
3. Finding marijuana in a driver’s system does not prove that marijuana was the cause of the accident. Marijuana metabolites can remain detectable after the period of intoxication, and even the presence of active THC does not reliably establish the degree of impairment or that there was any impairment;
4. The claim about the $4.50 social costs come from a single 2018 report commissioned by the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University, rather than anything from Massachusetts; 
5. It’s not clear from what source he derived some of his other claims.

He also makes the claim that:

• As a result of commercial marijuana, ER visits in Massachusetts have drastically increased for teenagers with psychiatric conditions.

This is essentially a red hearing. Teenagers are already prohibited from purchasing marijuana. One has to be 21 to purchase it legally.

Finally, the he argues that:

• Modern concentrates and edibles have been linked to mental health conditions like psychosis,  severe anxiety, and schizophrenia, particularly in young adults.

This is true, but it’s not going to be solved by repealing legalized marijuana. It’s much more likely that careful regulation and supervision by the Cannabis Control Commission will help in this area.

It’s also concerning that the group bank-rolling this proposal is Smart Approaches to Marijuana Action, which is a national organization headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia. That organization is headed by Kevin Sabet, a longtime advocate of restrictive marijuana policies.

On the other hand, there are quite a few negatives associated with repealing legalized recreational marijuana. These include:

• The lost revenue to cities and towns;
• Driving a lot of marijuana sales back into the illicit market;
• Driving some marijuana sales across state lines, where CT, VT, RI, NY, and ME all have legalized recreational marijuana;
• Shutting down a number of successful small businesses and the jobs that they represent;
• Repealing the rules and regulations that currently control the production and sale of marijuana.

The Boston Globe reports that since legalization, stores have sold more than $10 billion in marijuana products in the recreational market, generating nearly $2 billion in tax dollars. There are also nearly 800 recreational marijuana businesses operating and employing Massachusetts residents, plus ancillary businesses that provide services to the stores. Shutting down the recreational industry would force businesses to close, put employees out of work, and also lose the money of investors. That problem is complicated by the fact that marijuana businesses lack access to federal bankruptcy court because cannabis remains illegal under federal law.

I should also point out that Massachusetts enacted a major reform bill for the Cannabis Control Commission (Chapter 65 of the Acts of 2026). That enactment doesn’t really impact this particular question much — it’s mostly a response to the long-running feud between Treasurer Deb Goldberg and CCC Chair Shannon O’Brien (who ironically was also once the State Treasurer) — but it does indicate that the Commonwealth is taking this industry seriously.

There were other reforms in that legislation, and before we throw the baby out with the bathwater it might be wise to see how those reforms play out.

Question #7 would allow single-family homes to be built on lots of 5,000 square feet or more in residential areas, subject to reasonable local regulation of certain aspects of those homes. 

This question, colloquially known as the “StarterHome” initiative, is clearly directed at the problem that there is not enough new housing being built in Massachusetts, and especially not enough housing for young couples and families that cannot afford expensive homes especially in the Boston area. How effective it would be in doing this is subject to debate.

The team at the Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis estimates that the proposal might produce 750 new homes a year, but they also concede that their modeling “suggests a plausible range from 350 to 1,200 per year.”

That’s not nothing, but it’s not going to put a big dent into the housing crisis here in the Commonwealth. Still, every little bit helps.

The counter-argument is, of course, about local control. There is something to be said for local control, but let’s be honest, for the people who moved like Groton or Carlisle or Longmeadow or especially Lincoln or Weston, many of them moved there in part for the schools, in part to keep the town bucolic and in part to keep the riff raff out. And the riff raff in these cases are mostly young families trying to get started. And sometimes black and brown people.

If they haven’t already voted to approve starter homes on smaller lot sizes, it’s unlikely that they’re going to do so voluntarily.

Opponents have noted, rightfully so, that the proposal does not guarantee that houses built under this scheme would have to be modest or affordable. But it certainly is more common that houses on small lots are modest and affordable. 

The legislature also has the option of refining the requirements here to take into account questions related to things like wastewater capacity, and that’s probably likely here. 

But in terms of sending the message that we need more starter home housing to be built here in the Commonwealth and that one way of doing that is to make it easier to build homes on smaller lots, I think this proposal is sending the right message.

Question #6 creates a “Nature for All” fund that would receive some state taxes collected on the sale and use of sporting goods and recreational vehicles, and admission to golf courses. Specifically, 

• It earmarks 50% of state sales taxes on these three items to the fund;
• It does not increase total taxes or spending, but just earmarks a specific amount for a specific purpose (the total earmark is estimated to be about $65 million annually);
• The entire thing is still “subject to appropriation” by the legislature.

This is significant, and it’s drafted that way because under Article 48 (which governs the initiative petition process) ballot proposals that make a “specific appropriation of money from the state’s treasury” are deemed unconstitutional and would likely not be certified by the Attorney General.

What the question actually does then is:

1. Create the fund, the 15-member board, and the spending rules for the Fund;
2. Allow public and private donations to the fund;
3. Shield the Fund from having surplus amounts transferred out of the Fund at the end of the year.

Opponents of the question object that it’s really the legislature’s job to decide how this tax money is distributed as part of their budget deliberations, and that is essentially correct. If you have too many of these kinds of earmarks then you also implicitly cut off other worthy programs. It’s not the best way to do budgeting.

I will also note that this kind of proposal is normally just advanced through ordinary legislation and doesn’t become the subject of an initiative petition. And that is precisely because (1) it cannot legally require a specific appropriation, and (2) it undermines the normal budgeting process by seeking to require a specific earmark (despite the legal incapacity).

Nevertheless, I think it’s quite likely that it will pass. Who wants to vote against funding the protection of natural resources?

In the end I don’t think it will matter that much. While it creates a kind of “moral” obligation to respect the will of the voters, the legislature can (and eventually will) amend it to be harmonized with the normal budgeting process. In the meantime, the Commonwealth will add one more fund to dozens and dozens of existing funds, and Mass Audubon, which proposed the initiative will have a specific fund for which they can raise donated funds.

Question #5 would change the limit on state revenue collection, tying it to prior year collections plus average wage and salary growth, and provide for a rebate of revenue exceeding that limit.

First of all, what’s involved here is a complex scenario that is not easy to understand. To comprehend the impact of this proposal it is helpful to have a little bit of background on how the state budget works. The state appropriates the items it expends money on annually in about 1200 different line items. That is the expenditure side. On the revenue side the state receives revenues mostly from taxation, fees, and also from federal grants. The revenue side is more dynamic than one might think, and the revenues and expenditures don’t always match up precisely. 

Commonwealth Stabilization Fund

Because the Commonwealth (unlike the federal government) has to keep its budget balanced, depending on whether revenues are in surplus or in deficit, there has been established a Commonwealth Stabilization (or “Rainy Day”) Fund. Revenues are volatile, much more volatile than people think. Money is moved out of the Fund into other funds in order to keep things in balance.

The Stabilization Funds has really been used twice in the last couple of decades for significant  amounts:

1. Back during the 2001 recession, the Fund paid out about $1.7 billion in the 2002 and 2003 fiscal years;
2. Back during the 2007 banking crisis, the Fund paid out about $1.9 billion during the 2008, 2009 and 2010 fiscal years.

One time that the Fund did not need to be invoked (when it was expected that it would be invoked) is during the Covid crisis. We expected a massive draw down, but it turns out that was unnecessary because of (1) significant federal aid and (2) unexpected recovery in Massachusetts tax receipts.

And this is exactly how the Stabilization Fund is supposed to be used.

Chapter 62F

However, the Stabilization Fund also interacts with Chapter 62F of the General Laws which was the result of a 1986 ballot question. The chapter currently provides that state tax collections should not grow faster than the aggregate growth in wages and salaries earned in Massachusetts. In particular it:

• Establishes an annual ceiling on permissible state tax revenues, calculated using the growth in Massachusetts wages and salaries. The ceiling is not tied directly to inflation, population growth, or state spending.
• Requires the Department of Revenue to calculate revenues and the State Auditor to independently determine, by the third Tuesday in September, whether the Commonwealth exceeded its permissible revenue ceiling for the preceding fiscal year. 
• Establishes that if actual revenues exceed the ceiling, the entire excess must be returned to taxpayers through personal income tax credits. 

Keep in mind that (1) the growth formula uses a three-year average of annual wage-and-salary growth factors, rather than just the preceding year’s growth; (2) the allowable revenue ceiling also cannot decrease from one year to the next; and (3) the Chapter does not directly prohibit the Legislature from appropriating additional money. Rather, it establishes a statutory mechanism for returning excess tax collections to taxpayers.

Chapter 62F has been triggered exactly twice: in 1987 and in 2022. Both occasions resulted in refunds to Massachusetts taxpayers, but the economic circumstances, the size of the refunds, and the methods of distributing them were quite different.

In 1987 revenue collections exceeded the allowable limit  by 0.36% and resulted in $29.2 million in refunds (in 1987 dollars); in 2022 the excess was a much larger 7.03% excess resulting in $2.94 billion in refunds.

2022 is actually a very interesting story because it proves, in some ways, that both the Stabilization Fund and Chapter 62F are working as they should. It was anticipated, right after the apex of the pandemic, that revenue collections would fall off sharply. Instead, for various reasons, revenue collections did not fall off as much as anticipated and the Commonwealth received substantial funds from the federal government.

As a result, the Stabilization Fund was not triggered but Chapter 62F was, proving that revenue collections can be unanticipated both as a surplus and a deficit.

The Tag Team That Wasn’t

Further complicating this question is the fact that this question was initially paired with another question. You can see this by looking at the two petitions: H5006 (which became Question #5) and H5007, which the Supreme Judicial Court struck down as being in violation of Article 48. That proposal would have reduced the state income tax from 5% to 4%. 

The SJC struck this latter question in Finfer v. Attorney General, SJC-13885 (decided June 18, 2026) for reasons having to do with how the summary of the proposal was “materially misleading” about its effect on capital gains taxes.

Now, you can see in the majority and minority report of Question 5 as printed in the Information for Voters pamphlet that the Secretary of State sent out to each voting household in the Commonwealth. Both of those reports essentially treat the two questions (enhanced Chapter 62F and income tax reduction from 5% to 4%) as one question. But it no longer is that.

The Millionaire’s Tax

The final complication — as if we haven’t already described enough of these — is the Millionaire’s Tax, aka the “Fair Share Amendment,” which was enacted as Question #1 on the 2022 ballot questions. Unlike most other initiative petitions, this was one that actually amended the Massachusetts Constitution, so not one that can easily be rolled back.

The tax amended Article XLIV of the Massachusetts Constitution to impose an additional 4% income tax on annual taxable income exceeding $1 million, with that threshold adjusted annually for inflation.

The original (and conservative) estimate was that the amendment would generate approximately $1.2 billion annually. In FY2026, preliminary collections reached $3.38 billion, nearly three times that original estimate.

Among the major expenditures supported by Fair Share revenues are:

• Universal free school meals.
• Early education and child-care programs.
• Financial aid and tuition assistance at public colleges.
• MBTA operations, capital improvements, and safety.
• Regional transit authorities.
• Municipal roads and bridges, including Chapter 90-related assistance.

So relatively speaking, the Millionaire’s Tax has been successful, has funded what the people wanted it to fund, and has not led to a mass exodus of millionaires from the Commonwealth.

Why I’m Voting Against Question #5

I have a number of reasons why I’m voting against Question #5.

• First, the existing Chapter 62F is already doing what it is supposed to be doing. The proponents of Question 5 complain that it has only been invoked twice since its enactment. But that, my friends, is exactly how it is supposed to be working. It’s just like the Stabilization Fund: that has also only been invoked twice, when the Commonwealth was facing a serious revenue shortfall. That is also how that Fund is supposed to work. That does not suggest that it’s failing its task.
• Second, it turns out that there are reasons to believe that the question wouldn’t work as advertised. Those reasons are quite technical and they have to do with the delay in calculating the effect of any refunds on the Commonwealth’s balance sheet, and the feedback loop that might be created by those refunds. (If you’re interested in the details, I would refer you to the Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis, and their generally excellent non-partisan analysis of the Commonwealth’s state ballot questions. In addition, the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center has a very detailed examination of both Question 5 and the now eliminated income tax reduction.)
• Third, it undermines the Fair Share Amendment, which was just adopted four years ago. That tax — which was approved by a majority of voters as a Constitutional amendment — has been successful in doing exactly what we wanted it to do. Under this current proposal a large share of the refunds would go back exactly to those same millionaires who just began paying their fair share.

While the proposal may seem innocuous and harmless — it would just insure that taxpayers get more frequent refunds, according to its proponents — in actuality it would cause quite a bit of chaos in the annual budgeting process.

Question #4 would permit eligible individuals to register to vote or update their voter registration address on Election Day. An individual would have to provide proof of residency, sign a written oath, and acknowledge that providing false information is a felony punishable by not more than 5 years imprisonment or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. 

This is not a complicated question and there is only nominal opposition from the Republican party. This change would essentially eliminate the 10 day waiting period that is currently required between registering and actually voting.

A number of commentators have noted that the change would not have a dramatic impact because the Commonwealth already has a law, enacted in 2022 (Chapter 92 of the Acts of 2022), that established that Massachusetts citizens doing certain things at the Registry of Motor Vehicles, MassHealth, or the Commonwealth Health Connector are automatically registered to vote.

Because the people who tend to register last minute or forget to register on time are often part of the same cohort who do business at MassHealth and the Connector (everyone who owns a car has to do business at the RMV), this change targeted some of the same people who are also being targeted by this proposal.

About 21 states plus DC currently let voters register on Election Day itself. The count rises to about 22 to 25 if you include states that offer same-day registration only during early voting or only in presidential elections. 

The objection is the same old Republican canard: voter fraud.

As most of you know, voter fraud in the United States is exceedingly rare, whether in states that offer same day registration or states that do not. And, it turns out, that some of the oldest same-day states are among the best-run. Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Maine have had Election Day registration since the 1970s, for example. Minnesota and Wisconsin consistently rank near the top in turnout and in nonpartisan assessments of election administration.

Passage of the question would slightly increase the administrative burden on the cities and towns that run elections, so there would have to be some additional funding provided to make up the difference. That’s a budget question.

Otherwise, this is not a difficult question at all.

Question 3 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. Voters could vote for any candidate on the ballot. The two candidates receiving the most votes in the primary would advance to the general election ballot. 

This question is basically being promoted by Danielle Allen, a Harvard professor with a very impressive resume. Allen is an American political philosopher, classicist, and public intellectual who serves as a Professor at Harvard. She specializes in democratic theory, civic education, political philosophy, ethics, and public policy. Allen has held several high-profile academic and leadership roles. Before joining Harvard’s faculty in 2015, she was a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and previously served as Dean of Humanities at the University of Chicago. At Harvard, she directs the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation and has been closely involved with initiatives promoting civic education and democratic participation.

She was also a candidate for Governor in 2022, before Charlie Baker had decided whether he would run again, and before Maura Healey entered the race as sitting Attorney General. She had raised $1.3 million, but a MassINC poll had her at 3% among likely Democratic primary voters, compared with 12% for Sonia Chang-Díaz and 48% for Maura Healey. So (like Diana DiZoglio in Question #1), she has a bit of an axe to grind. If it had been an open primary, would she have beaten Maura Healey? Not a chance.

Even so, we should take her proposal seriously, and honestly, it’s a bit tricky to know what’s best here. As of today, there are two other states which run “all party” primaries, and their experience has been mixed: California and Washington State. (To be specific, Alaska has a hybrid ranked choice voting system, Nebraska has a unicameral legislature with a nonpartisan primary, and Louisiana eliminated partisan primaries in 1975, a system which has now been partially rolled back. But those are all different animals.)

The proposal in Question 3 is mostly modeled on the California system adopted through Proposition 14 in 2010. The results in California have been mixed. The practical effect is that same-party general elections are common in one-party districts, mostly Democrat-versus-Democrat in urban areas. Minor parties have largely disappeared from November ballots for these offices. California almost had a situation in 2018 when the fear was that Democratic candidates for Governor would so splinter the vote that the top two contenders would both be Republicans.

There are a couple of reasons to be wary of Question 3. The first is the enormous amounts of money it has attracted from private equity executives and investors. The coalition has raised more than $5.6 million since last year, making it the best-funded ballot question this cycle. The biggest donors include David Peeler, a senior advisor at Berkshire Partners, who has given more than $1 million, and Andrew Balson, a managing partner at Cove Hill Partners, who has given $790,000. Act on Mass, a progressive group opposing the question, calculated that former private equity executives from Bain Capital, Berkshire Partners, and other firms gave $3.7 million, over 70% of the money from individual donors. The spending gap is lopsided. The Yes side has spent about $4.1 million and outspent the No side by more than 80 to 1. As of early September, the main opposition committee had raised just $35,000, from the state Democratic Party and SEIU Local 509. 

That is concerning.

The second reason to be wary is that the proposal essentially castrates political parties, and political parties actually have a reason for being. They vet political candidates, they insure that those candidates are actually in general harmony with the parties’ political message. One can always run as an independent, but then you run without the party’s support. To me, the two different ways of running are represented by Mike Minogue and Dan Koh.

• Mike Minogue is a self-funded Republican businessman running for Governor. He is best known as a businessman and former medical device executive rather than a career politician. A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Minogue served as an Army officer and is a Desert Storm veteran who built a career in the medical technology industry. Minogue has put about $17.3 million of his own money into his campaign for governor, which is a record for a gubernatorial race.
• Dan Koh is a party-endorsed candidate for the %th Congressional district as Representative. He’s come up doing all the hands-on work that often make a candidate effective: He started as a Chief of staff to Marty Walsh as Boston mayor, held a seat on the Andover Select Board, then joined the Biden administration, first as chief of staff to Walsh as Labor Secretary and then as Deputy Director of the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. 

What would Minogue do as Governor? Probably lower taxes and reduce regulation. That is the Republican panacea. Despite what many people believe, that is not a winning formula. (Read up on Sam Brownback’s tenure as Governor of Kansas if you don’t know what I mean.) We have taxes and regulations for a reason. 

Dan Koh, on the other hand, is well-equipped to be a good congressman. Koh is a product of what political scientists call the “extended party network”: the elected officials, staff, donors, unions, and activists who make up a party in practice, beyond its formal organization. He has the support of the AFL-CIO and building trades. Those networks are how parties identify and develop talent. The result was a nominee who knows how Congress, federal agencies, and intergovernmental relations work, which is exactly the screening function the party-nomination argument emphasizes.

Is he guaranteed to be successful? Of course not. But the likelihood that he will be a good congressman is much higher than the likelihood that Minogue would be a good governor. 

So I don’t know. Question 3 sounds appealing, but I’m not sure it would actually move us in the right direction. I would rather have more Dan Koh’s running for office than Mike Minogue’s, and while I like Danielle Allen, the adoption of Question 3 is not going to make her a stronger candidate for a major office than she is today.

Just one man’s opinion.

Question #2 would that employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (“CPCS”) are permitted to engage in collective bargaining with their employer (and also that after executing a collective bargaining agreement, CPCS request the appropriation necessary to fund such agreement).

This is one of four questions (#1 Law to Improve Access to Public Records, #3 Relative to Election Day Registration, #6 Law to Protect Water & Nature, and #7 Law to Allow Single-Family Homes on Small Lots in Areas with Adequate Infrastructure being the others) that is formally unopposed. With the exception of Question #1, the lack of opposition reflects the fact that these proposals are generally uncontroversial, and that the proponents simply got tired of the legislature failing to act on their ideas. So they decided to take it to the people.

This particular question is the result of the fact that public defenders in the Commonwealth are, in general, paid woefully inadequately. First, it should be noted that there are two types of public defenders in Massachusetts, bar advocates, the private contract attorneys CPCS assigns to most indigent cases, and CPCS’s own salaried staff public defenders. 

The 2025–26 crisis centered on the first strand, and the second is now on the November ballot.

The bar advocates’ work stoppage (2025)

Bar advocates carry most of the load. They typically represent about 80% of the state’s indigent defendants, with CPCS staff attorneys covering the rest. Historically Massachusetts paid $65 an hour in District Court and $85 in Superior Court, which is much less than Maine ($158), New Hampshire ($125 to $150), New York ($158) and Rhode Island ($112 to $142)

On May 27, 2025, bar advocates in Suffolk and Middlesex Counties stopped accepting new appointments. Because they are contractors rather than employees, their action was not legally a strike. Unrepresented defendants piled up, and the SJC invoked the protocol that defendants held without counsel must be released after 7 days, with their cases dismissed without prejudice after 45 days. More than 1,600 criminal cases were eventually dismissed.

The legislature responded in a supplemental budget (Chapter 14 of the Acts of 2025) which (1) raised bar advocate pay by $20 an hour over two years, (2) gave CPCS $40 million to hire 320 new public defenders by the end of 2027 (effectively doubling its staff) and (3) declared any agreement among bar advocates to refuse new cases until rates rise a violation of antitrust law. 

The raise did not immediately end the stoppage. Because each contractor decided individually whether to accept the new rate, the bill was a gamble. Some bar advocates returned, but fewer than before the stoppage.

CPCS goes to the SJC, and loses (March 2026)

CPCS then asked the court to go past the Legislature, in Committee for Public Counsel Services v. Middlesex and Suffolk County District Courts and Boston Municipal Court (SJC-13824). CPCS acknowledged it had to show the Legislature’s response was “constitutionally inadequate.” It proposed no number, asking instead that the single justice be empowered to raise rates temporarily. However, the court ruled unanimously against CPCS.

Staff attorneys and Question 2 (November 2026)

This question concerns not the bar advocates, but CPCS’s own salaried employees. They lack the collective bargaining rights held by public employees at most other state agencies. Question 2 does nothing for bar advocates. As independent contractors, they are not covered and get no compensation increase. Supporters frame the stoppage as context rather than cause. They argue the $40 million staff expansion that came out of it is exactly why CPCS staff attorneys always needed a union.

My personal view is that CPCS staff attorneys should have the same bargaining rights that most other non-management state employees have.

This question would make most records held by the  Legislature and the Office of the Governor public  records under the Massachusetts Public Records  Law. It creates two new exemptions, one for “policy development” and one for communication between the legislature and their constituents. The question is, in many ways, the continuation of a long-running feud between Massachusetts Auditor Diana DiZoglio and the Massachusetts state legislature (formally the “General Court”). She is joined this time by former gubernatorial candidate Danielle Allen (more on her in the discussion of Question #3). As I wrote two years ago when discussing 2024’s Question 1, relative to the ability of the Auditor to audit the legislature:

2024’s Question #1 passed overwhelmingly by 72%, but the issue has been tied up in court ever since. The legislature claims that the Question violated the “separation of powers” doctrine, and the case has gone up to the Supreme Judicial Court. As of early October 2026, the SJC has not ruled on the merits. Instead, the SJC round was procedural: DiZoglio filed directly in the SJC in February 2026, through her general counsel. The petition asked the court to authorize appointment of a special assistant attorney general so her office could be represented, and to directly compel legislative leaders to comply with document requests under the 2024 law. In March, the court blocked her from bringing on Shannon Liss-Riordan as outside counsel, instead of using the Attorney General. The day after argument, they gave AG Campbell 30 days to decide whether she would represent DiZoglio. Campbell then said she would let DiZoglio appoint an attorney to go into court on four specific records requests that DiZoglio had made to kick off the litigation. The legislature then gave DiZoglio the four requested documents, so that the question now is whether the case is moot. It’s still lingering in Superior Court, without the SJC having considered it on the merits.

And here we are.

Be sure that the current Question #1 is aimed directly at the Legislature. Yes, the office of the Governor is also included in the proposed changes, but the executive branch and all of its agencies are already fully included in the public records law. The Governor’s personal office is not, but the new law proposed to exempt discussions “related to the development of public policy,” which means that most of the records generated by the Office of the Governor would be exempt anyway.

No, the real target here is the legislature, and that will create a new fight over separation of powers, as the Auditor is in the Executive Branch and the Legislature is its own branch. They will not be open to having the Auditor decide whether the legislature complied with the public records law. 

I think the likelihood is great that this question will pass overwhelmingly, just like Question #1 from two years ago. But it won’t make much difference. When it comes to questions related to the development of the budget, or the Commonwealth’s finances, the Executive Office for Administration and Finance already provides exhaustively detailed material in its budget submission, available on the Commonwealth’s website. Most of any additional materials will be governed by one of the two exemptions, either the policy development exemption or the constituent communications exemption.

And the rest of Question #1 will be tied up in court, just like Question #1 from two years ago.

Some of my loyal readers remember that every two years I like to provide summaries of the Ballot questions, and arguments for why one should vote for or against them. For the 2026 Ballot, Massachusetts has an unusually large number of ballot questions: nine in total. It also has the unusual situation of having about half the ballot questions being formally unopposed.

Also, a quick reminder that  the Initiative and Referendum process is governed by Article 48 of the Amendments to the state Constitution (later modified by Articles 74 and 81) which creates two citizen-driven mechanisms: (1) the initiative statute (or, on occasion, the initiative constitutional amendment) and (2) the popular (veto) referendum.

In 2026 there are eight questions that are statute-based initiatives, and one that is a veto referendum.

Article 48 bars certain subjects from both initiative and referendum:

• religion and religious institutions, including public aid to sectarian institutions
• the appointment, qualification, tenure, removal, or compensation of judges, and the reversal of judicial decisions
• the powers, creation, or abolition of courts
• measures limited to a particular town, city, or political subdivision
• specific appropriations from the treasury
• a list of Declaration of Rights guarantees, including just compensation for takings, jury trial, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and freedom of speech, press, elections, and assembly

A measure that is substantially the same as one qualified for or submitted at either of the two preceding biennial state elections is also barred. 

Here are the nine ballot questions approved for the November 3, 2026 ballot. The ones where there is no “opponent website” are the five that are unopposed. Over the next week I will be examining the nine questions and providing you with my personal take, which is, of course, not unbiased. But at least a little bit informed.

There was a video on my Facebook feed that I have to admit I didn’t get. It was apparently from today’s hearing where the Republicans are trying to get Jack Smith and prove that his investigation of Trump was illegitimate. Here’s the video:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2148662619117337

It turns out that Eric Schmitt, the Republican senator from Missouri, questioned Smith about February 3, 2024. He first established that Smith said he had never met Fulton County DA Fani Willis or special prosecutor Nathan Wade, who at the time were handling Georgia’s election-interference prosecution of Trump. Schmitt then asked whether Smith had traveled to Atlanta and attended the Atlanta Hawks–Golden State Warriors NBA game that night. Smith said no.

That was supposed to set up the reveal. Schmitt said his office had obtained text messages from members of Smith’s team supposedly showing that Smith was at a basketball game, and he warned Smith to think carefully so that he wouldn’t “perjure yourself.” After Smith continued to deny attending the Hawks game, Schmitt said, “I think you’ve already perjured yourself.”

The apparent theory behind the questioning was that Smith secretly traveled to Atlanta , to meet with Willis and Wade. Therefore his denial of contact/coordination may be false.

That would have been potentially significant. Smith was running the federal Trump election case while Willis and Wade were running the separate Georgia state case. Evidence that Smith had secretly traveled to Atlanta and met with them could have raised legitimate questions about coordination between the two prosecutions, particularly if Smith had previously denied such contacts.

But the factual premise fell apart.

Smith said that he did remember attending a basketball game around that date. It wasn’t an NBA game in Atlanta. It was Iowa vs. Maryland women’s college basketball at the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland. Caitlin Clark was playing for Iowa. That game occurred on exactly February 3, 2024; Iowa won 93–85 and Clark scored 38 points. Smith also said the U.S. Marshals Service had accompanied him, meaning there should be government records corroborating where he was.

And that’s when Sen. Amy Klobuchar apparently figured out what had happened: Iowa’s team is the Hawkeyes, which Smitt’s team apparently interpreted as the Atlanta Hawks.

Oops.

Of course, by then Schmitt had already accused Smith of having perjured himself and of being a “dirtbag.”

I guess if you’re going to have a big “gotcha” moment on live Television it helps if you get you’re facts straight. The Hawks ain’t the Hawkeyes.