My November 2026 Massachusetts Ballot

I’m a right-libertarian, and my political beliefs shape my choices on this November’s Massachusetts ballot.¹ I can interpret my beliefs in more than one way when weighing a proposal’s consequences. I won’t borrow a party platform to make my choices look tidier. The ballot requires a “Yes” or “No” even when my reasoning leaves room for reservations. I want readers to see my judgment behind my vote without mistaking a marked box for the whole of my beliefs.

---

My Votes on the Massachusetts Ballot

The Question	The Official Guide Title	My Vote
1	Expanding the Public Records Law	Yes
2	Collective Bargaining for CPCS Employees	No
3	State Primary Elections	No
4	Election Day Registration	No
5	State Revenue Limit & Rebate	Yes
6	Natural Resource Conservation Fund	No
7	Single Family Homes	Yes
8	Prohibit Retail Sale of Adult Recreational Use Marijuana	Yes
9	Firearms Regulation	No

---

The official summary introduces each question before I explain my vote. I judge a proposal’s legal effect separately from the appeal of its stated purpose. My choice rests on what I’m willing to authorize, including the consequences I can’t separate from the result I want.

Question 1: Expanding the Public Records Law

The Official Summary²

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.

My Vote: “Yes”

The government needs transparency; the people exercising public power ought to expect scrutiny, especially when that scrutiny concerns their own institution. I want access to the records behind the decisions. The ballot’s “…no vote was taken…” is the part that makes me laugh: the Massachusetts Legislature let the May 6th deadline pass without either chamber voting on access to its own records.³

Question 1 would open most records held by the Massachusetts Legislature and the Office of the Governor, with exemptions that cover policy development and protect constituent communications meeting the proposal’s conditions; the proposal leaves some doors closed, but the prospect of opening the others earns my “Yes”.

Question 2: Collective Bargaining for CPCS Employees

The Official Summary⁴

This proposed law would specify that employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (“CPCS”) are permitted 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 fund such agreement from the Governor.

My Vote: “No”

I oppose public-sector unions for bargaining against taxpayer money; the cost of the agreement lands on the public; calling the arrangement collective bargaining doesn’t make the bill private. The government is the biggest gang in Massachusetts; the idea that its employees should have a right to unionize is ridiculous. I regard government employment as the cushiest sector of the labor market. The combination of low risk and rewards that are outsized in pay and benefits strikes me as the opposite of capitalism. I see that arrangement rewarding sloth while stifling competition.

The Committee for Public Counsel Services is the immediate case: Question 2 would permit its employees to bargain collectively and require the committee to request an appropriation to fund an agreement. My objection reaches beyond this particular workforce to the incentives created by bargaining over public money. My vote is “No”.

Question 3: State Primary Elections

The Official Summary⁵

This proposed law 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, and 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 proposed law would require candidates for governor and lieutenant governor to run and be listed jointly on the ballot in the primary.

This proposed law would provide political party status to any group whose candidates for any statewide office received at least 3% of the ballots cast in the state primary.

My Vote: “No”

Question 3 is fuckin’ bonkers! An all-party primary sounds like an invitation to broaden the choices, yet its top-two rule would narrow November’s printed ballot to two candidates. I don’t call that an improvement in democracy.

The Democratic Party already holds supermajorities in both chambers of the Massachusetts Legislature,⁶ and a race with two Democrats finishing first and second would put two Democrats on the general-election ballot. I see a system capable of strengthening the party already dominating state government. A Libertarian finishing third would lose a place on November’s printed ballot. The Libertarian Party of Massachusetts could qualify for party status under the proposed rule while its candidate missed the top two; a political organization doesn’t have to be prohibited to lose access to the print version of the general-election ballot.⁷ I want political alternatives to survive beyond the primary.

My comparison with communist elections concerns the distortion of treating a winning percentage as proof of meaningful choice after alternatives have been excluded. Massachusetts would retain a competitive primary, but its top-two rule could leave November voters choosing between two candidates from the same party. I don’t regard the winner’s percentage as an answer to the choices missing from that ballot.

I consider this restriction undemocratic and un-American.

Question 4: Election Day Registration

The Official Summary⁸

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

An individual who is eligible to vote could register to vote on Election Day by going to the polling place in the precinct where they live during voting hours and presenting proof of residency and signing a written oath.

Proof of residency could be a valid photo identification, or documentation showing the individual’s name and the address where the individual resides, such as a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, residential lease, wireless telephone statement, paycheck, current student fee statement or other document from a post-secondary school, or another government document or correspondence.

The written oath would require the individual to certify that they are a citizen of the United States, are at least 18 years old, are not legally prohibited from voting, and have not and will not vote in the same election at another location. The oath would require the individual to 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.

If an individual did not present proof of residency, they would be allowed to cast a provisional ballot, which would be counted only if the individual returned to provide the required information before the close of polls for a municipal election; within two days after a state primary; or within six days after a state election.

Individuals who register to vote on Election Day would be registered to vote in future elections as well as in the election taking place that day.

Individuals who are already registered to vote would not be able to change their political party affiliation on Election Day.

The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2028.

My Vote: “No”

I suspect that Election Day registration is another attempt to rig elections with fraudulent voters. My view of fraud in federal elections and state elections over the past 10 to 15 years has left me unwilling to trust this change. The proposal asks for confidence that the registration process can do its work on the day the votes are cast.

The text includes proof of residency, an oath, and penalties for false information; the provisional-ballot procedure gives a person without the required proof a deadline to supply the missing material. I don’t regard those protections as sufficient reassurance. I see the writing on the wall, and my vote is “No”.

Question 5: State Revenue Limit & Rebate

The Official Summary⁹

This proposed law would change the limit on how much revenue the state can collect in a given year. The proposal would limit state revenue in a given year to the net amount of state revenue from the year before, increased by a rate equal to the average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts over the most recent three years. If revenue collected by the state in a given year exceeds the limit, the excess amount would be refunded to taxpayers the following year.

The proposed law would include all revenue from the surtax on incomes over $1 million when calculating the revenue limit and when determining whether state revenue exceeds the limit.

The provisions of the proposed law would all be effective as of July 1, 2027.

The proposed law states that, if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

My Vote: “Yes”

The rebate system tells on itself with every refund. The government collects money, calculates the amount it must return, and makes taxpayers finance the administration in both directions.¹⁰ The ol’ razzle-dazzle turns a round trip through the treasury into something that resembles a favor.

I despise excess taxation. The simpler arrangement would leave more money in taxpayers’ hands by collecting less upfront. My eventual goal is abolition of the rebate system, including the friction of collecting and refunding money.

Question 5 stops short of that goal: it changes the revenue-limit calculation while retaining the refund mechanism and leaving tax rates unchanged. The state’s own fiscal assessment expects less room for the budget and for building reserves.¹¹ My answer starts with spending cuts; the government’s existing appetite doesn’t deserve automatic priority over taxpayers’ money.

The rainy-day fund belongs in my argument because tax revenue can crash. Massachusetts already has the Commonwealth Stabilization Fund, but a formula declaring revenue “excess” doesn’t establish that the reserve is adequate.¹² I want a state that cuts spending and prepares for its emergencies instead of treating federal rescue as the next budget line.

I want Massachusetts and every other state to stop sucking off the federal government’s teat. A refund today can become false economy, if inadequate reserves leave the state begging the federal government for help tomorrow. My objection to excess taxation includes my expectation that the state manage its own financial risks.

I want those reserves to include the federal government’s short-term debt securities; the investment would support federal financing while giving Massachusetts a claim to repayment instead of a request for discretionary aid, though the state would still depend on the federal government honoring its debt.¹³

The bonds of Massachusetts’s counties, cities, and towns also deserve consideration; county debt belongs under the municipal-bond umbrella.¹⁴ The bonds’ duration and suitability matter because money needed during an emergency can’t be treated as an investment with an unlimited horizon. I regard Massachusetts investing in its own debt as self-dealing and would exclude the state’s own bonds from that policy.¹⁵

My “Yes” supports a tighter limit on the state’s take; the proposal retains the existing law’s prior-year floor, so a revenue decline wouldn’t automatically translate into an equivalent fall in the operative ceiling.¹⁶ The actual mechanism is more limited than an uncomplicated promise to shrink government. I want to hasten the collapse of the collect-and-rebate arrangement. A “Yes” vote won’t abolish that system, but it supports the revenue restraint behind my decision. I want spending cuts to come first, collection to fall, and reserves to reduce dependence on the federal government’s whims.

Question 6: Natural Resource Conservation Fund

The Official Summary¹⁷

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.

My Vote: “No”

The conservation label doesn’t earn my trust. I expect Massachusetts to treat this money as a slush fund, whatever the stated use; my vote is “No”. Question 6 redirects existing tax receipts into the Nature for All Fund; it doesn’t create a new tax or raise a rate. My categorical opposition to new taxes remains, but my objection to this proposal is the government’s stewardship of money already collected. A named purpose and a new fund don’t reassure me about the eventual spending.

The provision for lands and natural resources of “indigenous cultural significance” reads to me as akin to reparations for Native Americans.¹⁸ The legal mechanism is conservation and restoration, not an individual compensation entitlement. I don’t support setting aside tax receipts for that purpose.

Question 7: Single Family Homes

The Official Summary¹⁹

This proposed law would allow single-family homes to be built in a residentially zoned area as long as the land on which it is to be constructed is at least 5,000 square feet, has at least 50 feet of land bordering the street, road, or public way that it faces, and has access to public sewer and water services.

The proposed law would allow cities and towns to reasonably regulate certain aspects of those single-family homes, including their height, distance from neighboring buildings, open space, parking requirements, and whether they can be rented out on a short-term basis. The proposed law would also allow the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities to issue guidance or regulations to administer the proposed law.

My Vote: “Yes”

My “Yes” on Question 7 gives an owner’s freedom to use the land greater weight than my concerns about municipal power and dependence on public utilities.

I’m troubled by taking power away from one of our most local forms of government. A decision made at the state level can leave a town with less control over its own development. I don’t regard that loss as an automatic victory merely because the proposed result is a house.

The benefit is concrete: the proposal would protect single-family construction against zoning rules that prohibit it, impose unreasonable restrictions, or require discretionary approval, if the lot lies in a district that allows residential uses, and the lot measures at least 5,000 square feet, has at least 50 feet of frontage, and has access to public sewer and water services.²⁰ The town would retain reasonable regulations. I support the owner’s added ability to build.

The sewer and water condition is the catch; the lot must have access to both public services, but the proposal doesn’t define “access” and includes no express connection requirement.²¹ An owner who wants a well and septic system could therefore face uncertainty even with both public services available. The rules already on municipal books make my concern more than a word game. Some municipalities already require hookups under specified conditions, and Question 7 doesn’t expressly repeal those requirements.²² My concern is that more municipalities could impose connection mandates to frustrate the new freedom, adding costs and delays to construction.

The Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities would have authority to issue guidance or regulations, so municipalities wouldn’t have exclusive control over the state-law meaning of access.²³ The word “public” also doesn’t guarantee government ownership; a water system can be privately owned by a company or a homeowner association.²⁴ Those distinctions matter, but neither removes the conditions attached to the owner’s freedom.

I don’t want a promise of easier construction to become another route into compulsory utility dependence. My concern about municipalities obstructing the law doesn’t establish that any municipality has such a plan. My “Yes” is for the added freedom to build, with the loss of local control and the utility pitfalls included in the price.

Question 8: Prohibit Retail Sale of Adult Recreational Use Marijuana

The Official Summary²⁵

The proposed law would change the type and amount of marijuana that may legally be possessed in Massachusetts by repealing the laws that legalize, regulate, and tax the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana in Massachusetts.

The proposed law would also permit persons 21 years of age and older to possess 1 ounce or less of marijuana including no more than 5 grams in the form of concentrate, and to gift or transfer to another person 21 years of age and older 1 ounce or less of marijuana including no more than 5 grams in the form of concentrate. The proposed law would also impose a civil penalty of $100 and forfeiture of the marijuana for the possession of marijuana between the weight of 1 and 2 ounces.

For persons 21 years of age and younger, the proposed law would make the possession of 2 ounces or less of marijuana a civil infraction subject to a $100 fine, forfeiture of the marijuana, completion of a drug awareness program and community service, and notification to their parents or legal guardian of the offense and penalties.

The proposed law would allow currently licensed adult recreational marijuana businesses to apply on an expedited basis to become a licensed medical marijuana dispensary and to sell their remaining inventory of adult recreational marijuana to medical marijuana dispensaries. The proposed law would retain the Cannabis Control Commission but modify its authority so it would regulate only the medical marijuana market.

The proposed law states that, if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2028.

My Vote: “Yes”

I voted to allow the retail sale of marijuana and don’t consider my earlier vote a mistake. I could foresee the risks before legalization. I’ve seen brazenness since the law took effect; that conduct has changed my tolerance. I now want recreational retail sales prohibited. My “Yes” is punitive.

My rights begin at the tip of my nose. I’ve been behind drivers smoking marijuana in shitty cars, and those cars had loud pipes and even louder music. My impression is that a socioeconomic pattern runs through those encounters; the conduct strikes me as an invitation to get arrested. The smoke is an intrusion, and the prospect of an impaired driver makes the encounter a double whammy; a driver high behind the wheel is a bridge too far. My earlier willingness to allow retail sales has run into conduct that reaches everyone sharing the road.

I believe that there’s very little enforcement against driving under the influence of marijuana. A positive drug test alone doesn’t reliably establish current impairment, which makes the enforcement problem harder than detecting the drug.²⁶ Massachusetts already prohibits marijuana-impaired driving,²⁷ and investigators have methods beyond chemical testing,²⁸ but those methods don’t give me confidence that enforcement alone will answer my concern.

I believe that the political side of this business reeks of favoritism. The licensing records identified former Fall River Mayor William Flanagan and former Boston City Councilor Tito Jackson as owners of cannabis businesses.²⁹ I dislike seeing familiar politicians inside a market whose doors government controls; ownership alone doesn’t establish a fraudulent license.

The political connections predate the recreational market. William “Bill” Delahunt, the former congressman from Quincy, led Medical Marijuana of Massachusetts, Inc., when it received three provisional approvals in 2014; the company lost those approvals after the Department of Public Health questioned the structure of the company’s finances and the company’s representations of political support.³⁰ Delahunt resigned that September,³¹ and a court ruled in 2015 that the company’s Plymouth and Mashpee applications should proceed.³²

The government’s control over licenses also supplied opportunities for extortion and bribery. Jasiel Correia II extorted marijuana vendors through the municipal approval process as mayor of Fall River; his conviction survived appeal.³³ Sean O’Donovan, a former attorney, also had his bribery conviction upheld on appeal, although two wire-fraud convictions were vacated.³⁴ Suffolk County Sheriff Steven Tompkins was acquitted of both cannabis-related extortion charges in September 2026.³⁵ My anger at the proven abuses gives me no basis to treat an acquittal as guilt.

The Cannabis Control Commission is a disaster. The Office of the State Auditor found products sold without required retesting,³⁶ and Massachusetts Inspector General Jeffrey Shapiro urged a receivership after identifying failures in the agency’s governing structure.³⁷ Massachusetts restructured the commission in April 2026³⁸ and appointed new commissioners in May;³⁹ those repairs haven’t restored my confidence.

The taxes are ridiculous. I supported the 2016 measure, which already included taxes totaling up to 12% per transaction.⁴⁰ The Massachusetts Legislature raised that maximum to 20% in 2017.⁴¹ I believe that Massachusetts is encouraging illegal sales by making legal purchases more expensive and overburdening dispensary owners with the costs of operating under its rules. The state taxes the transaction and leaves the lawful seller to compete with the untaxed sale.

My objection to those burdens doesn’t make the owners’ losses my concern. The compliant operators knew the risks of government oversight when they entered the business. I want the fraudulent participants punished and am prepared to vote against the retail system even though closure would reach businesses that followed the rules.

I remain fine with medical marijuana and regard its users as more mature. My reversal concerns the recreational retail market. Question 8 preserves the medical program and leaves the Cannabis Control Commission in charge of that program, while allowing businesses that already operate in the recreational market to seek medical licenses through an expedited process.⁴²

The repeal also reaches beyond retail stores. Question 8 would preserve specified protections for adult possession while removing recreational home-growing protections, repealing the separate marijuana open-container provision, and ending the general public-consumption prohibition.⁴³ The authority to regulate public consumption would remain with municipalities, and the existing prohibition on marijuana-impaired driving would remain.

The loss of legal stores could give illegal sellers more customers. I still want the recreational retail system closed, though my “Yes” cannot guarantee less impaired driving or reserve the consequences for the guilty. I gave marijuana users rope, and they used it to hang themselves; my vote is “Yes”.

Question 9: Firearms Regulation

The Official Summary⁴⁴

This law makes a number of changes to Massachusetts laws governing firearms.

The law adds school administrators and licensed healthcare providers as parties permitted to ask a court to issue an Extreme Risk Protection Order – requiring an individual to surrender or relinquish their firearm licenses, permits, and firearms – if an individual is a present danger to self or others. The law also provides that, when issuing a Harassment Prevention Order, a court may also order the surrender of firearms licenses, permits, and firearms.

The law imposes penalties for possessing, creating, and transferring untraceable “ghost gun” firearms and requires all firearms except antiques and relics, including unfinished frames and receivers that can be readily made into a finished product, to have serial numbers. The law includes privately-made guns like 3D-printed guns within the provisions governing untraceable “ghost gun” firearms.

The law changes firearms licensing requirements to: (1) allow local licensing authorities to request prior license and permit information from the state, as well as access petitions for involuntary mental health commitments denied by a court in addition to prior involuntary commitments, as a part of their review of applications for licenses to carry firearms, firearm ID cards, and licenses to sell firearms; (2) require an individual to be 21 years of age to own semiautomatic rifles or shotguns; (3) add the possibility of incarceration of up to six months for a second offense of failing to report a firearm loss or theft; and (4) enable 12-15 year olds to apply for a self-defense spray permit with parental permission, and 15 to 18 year olds to apply independently.

The law allows local firearm licensing authorities to transfer the responsibility to inspect firearm dealers to the State Police. The law requires local licensing authorities to attend statewide training regarding those inspections. It requires dealers to confiscate expired or suspended licenses and report them to the state and to local licensing authorities.

The law changes the definition of “machine gun” to include bump stocks, trigger cranks, Glock switches and auto sears among the devices whose possession and use are subject to penalties. It expands the definition of “silencer” to include the parts used to construct a silencer.

The law clarifies how to determine whether a firearm is an assault-style weapon and the circumstances under which a person may continue to possess assault-style weapons and large capacity feeding devices they already own.

The law requires the state Firearm Control Advisory Board and the state Secretary of Public Safety and Security to review and update the rosters of prohibited assault-style firearms, approved firearms, and approved firearms sold for target shooting.

The law clarifies requirements relating to the carry and transport of firearms in motor vehicles and ATVs. It prohibits the carrying of firearms in government buildings, polling locations, and schools, with certain exceptions.

The law expands data compilation and reporting requirements to and from the state, and creates a publicly-accessible dashboard of anonymized aggregate firearm data, along with a commission to study that data.

The law requires the State Police to provide training and a test for new applicants for licenses to carry or Firearm ID cards.

The law establishes two special legislative commissions – one to examine funding for violence prevention services, and one to study emerging firearms technology.

The law criminalizes discharging a firearm and striking a building in use.

My Vote: “No”

I’m a firm believer in the Second Amendment and reject any infringement. I want more Massachusetts residents to own more firearms. Question 9 puts the 2024 firearms act to a vote: “Yes” keeps the act, and my “No” supports repeal of that act without erasing every Massachusetts firearms law.⁴⁵

I believe that a good guy with a gun is good for society.

What My Votes Leave Unsaid

I stand behind my votes without pretending that every conflict has disappeared. My reasons remain open to scrutiny. I’m willing to reconsider my choices and explain my change of mind. A change in my thinking doesn’t automatically make my earlier judgment an error. I remain responsible for my votes.

Source Notes

1. Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2026 Information for Voters, accessed October 19th, 2026. The guide supplies the nine-question inventory, official titles, ballot wording, official summaries, and the legislation reproduced in full. ↩︎
2. Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Question 1: Expanding the Public Records Law”, 2026 Information for Voters, accessed October 19th, 2026. The page contains the ballot question, the Attorney General’s summary, the vote-effect statements, and the proposal in full. ↩︎
3. Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Question 1, ballot question, 2026 Information for Voters, accessed October 20th, 2026. The question specifies that neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives voted on the proposal before May 6th, 2026; the statement concerns chamber votes before that deadline; it does not establish an absence of hearings or committee action. ↩︎
4. Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Question 2: Collective Bargaining for CPCS Employees”, 2026 Information for Voters, accessed October 19th, 2026. The proposal concerns employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services. ↩︎
5. Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Question 3: State Primary Elections”, 2026 Information for Voters, accessed October 19th, 2026. The proposal establishes a primary in which candidates from all parties may compete and a top-two route to the print version of the general-election ballot. A group could gain party status under the proposal through a statewide primary result of at least 3%; recognition does not guarantee a place on the general-election ballot. ↩︎
6. Massachusetts General Court, House Members and Senate Members, accessed October 19th, 2026. The rosters list 131 Democrats in the 160-seat House and 35 Democrats in the 40-seat Senate; the House has three vacancies. ↩︎
7. Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Political Parties and Designations, Parties and Designations sections, and Question 3, proposed sections 1 and 2, accessed October 20th, 2026. The current directory lists Democratic and Republican as parties and Libertarian as a designation. The proposal would allow a group to gain party status through a statewide primary result of at least 3%, while a candidate would still need a top-two finish for a printed place on the general-election ballot. The hypothetical qualification in the text describes future status under the proposal. ↩︎
8. Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Question 4: Election Day Registration”, 2026 Information for Voters, accessed October 20th, 2026. The proposal retains eligibility requirements and specifies evidence of residency, an oath, procedures for provisional ballots, and penalties. The text establishes no finding of fraudulent intent by its proponents. The summary gives a deadline of “two days” after a state primary; proposed section 34A(d) specifies 2 business days. ↩︎
9. Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Question 5: State Revenue Limit & Rebate”, 2026 Information for Voters, accessed October 19th, 2026. The Attorney General’s summary describes the proposed revenue-limit calculation, refunds, surtax inclusion, and effective date. ↩︎
10. Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 62F, section 5 and section 6, accessed October 19th, 2026. The existing process includes reports, an auditor’s determination, and calculations of credits, with payments where applicable; the provisions establish administrative work without quantifying the existing cost or any change attributable to Question 5. ↩︎
11. Executive Office of Administration and Finance, Question 5, Statement of Fiscal Consequences, 2026 Information for Voters, accessed October 20th, 2026. The assessment forecasts reduced money for the state budget and for building the Commonwealth Stabilization Fund; the assessment supplies no prediction that the rebate system will collapse. ↩︎
12. Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 29, section 2H, accessed October 19th, 2026. The Commonwealth Stabilization Fund addresses revenue shortfalls, losses of federal funds, and threats to fiscal stability through the statutory appropriation process; its existence does not establish the adequacy of reserves for an emergency in the future. ↩︎
13. United States Department of the Treasury, “Treasury Bills”, accessed October 19th, 2026. The bills mature within 1 year and can be sold before maturity. A purchase at issuance supplies money directly to the federal government; a secondary-market purchase pays the existing holder. A Treasury repayment obligation remains distinct from assistance provided at the federal government’s discretion. ↩︎
14. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Investor Bulletin: Municipal Bonds – Asset Allocation, Diversification, and Risk”, April 28th, 2021, accessed October 19th, 2026. The municipal category includes securities issued by states, counties, cities, and other governmental entities. The bulletin describes credit risks and liquidity risks; the category alone establishes no suitability for an emergency reserve. ↩︎
15. Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 29, section 38, accessed October 19th, 2026. The statute’s subsections (b) and (c) permit the Treasury’s short-term obligations as specified in those provisions, together with bonds or notes of Massachusetts’s counties, cities, and towns. The statute’s subsection (a) also permits Commonwealth obligations; the statute does not prohibit the own-debt investment criticized in the text. ↩︎
16. Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 62F, section 2, and Question 5’s proposed amendments, accessed October 19th, 2026. The proposal changes the maximum-revenue calculation and includes surtax revenue, while leaving the definition of allowable state tax revenues and its prior-year floor intact; the distinction limits any claim that a decline in collections necessarily lowers the operative cap. ↩︎
17. Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Question 6: Natural Resource Conservation Fund”, 2026 Information for Voters, accessed October 19th, 2026. The proposed section 2EEEEEE establishes a separate fund using shares of existing receipts, with the provisions subject to legislative appropriation; the proposal does not create a new tax or raise a rate. ↩︎
18. Question 6, proposed section 2EEEEEE, subsections (b)(v), (d), and (e), accessed October 19th, 2026. The text covers conservation and restoration of lands and resources of indigenous cultural significance and includes tribal governments among eligible recipients; the provisions establish neither an individual compensation entitlement for historical wrongs nor a finding of fund misuse. ↩︎
19. Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Question 7: Single Family Homes”, 2026 Information for Voters, accessed October 19th, 2026. The 5,000-square-foot threshold applies to the lot. The proposal would preserve municipalities’ reasonable regulations and would impose no obligation on owners to build. ↩︎
20. Question 7, proposed section 1, addition to chapter 40A, section 3, accessed October 20th, 2026. The operative paragraph bars zoning rules that prohibit a single-family residence, impose unreasonable restrictions on it, require a special permit, or require another approval that depends on municipal discretion, provided the residence’s lot meets the conditions on area, the conditions on frontage, and the conditions on access to public services; municipalities would retain authority to adopt reasonable regulations and restrict short-term rentals. ↩︎
21. Question 7, proposed section 1, accessed October 19th, 2026. The provision requires access to both services but leaves access undefined and includes no express hookup requirement; it authorizes guidance and regulations from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities and supplies no order that expressly requires existing wells or existing septic systems to be converted throughout the state. ↩︎
22. Town of Chelmsford, Private Wells, sections 201-31.8(C) and 201-36; Town of Salisbury, Sewer Connections, sections 209-16 and 209-17, accessed October 19th, 2026. Chelmsford’s rule ordinarily bars approval of a drinking-water well where a public line is accessible in an abutting way and connection permission is available, with a variance process. Salisbury requires connections for properties that fall within its rule’s scope and lie near a sewer and supplies a limited variance; the examples establish local obligations, not a requirement that mandates hookup throughout the state. ↩︎
23. Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 83, section 10, and Question 7, proposed section 1, accessed October 19th, 2026. The sewer-connection powers of municipalities do not establish exclusive authority to define “access” under the proposed state law. The sources identify no municipal plan to obstruct the proposal. ↩︎
24. Massachusetts Division of Occupational Licensure and Board of Certification of Operators of Drinking Water Supply Facilities, “Drinking Water Supply Facility Operators: Consumer Fact Sheet”, Public Water Systems, accessed October 19th, 2026. The guidance identifies private companies as possible owners and includes homeowner associations and governments in that category; it does not decide the meaning of public water under Question 7. ↩︎
25. Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Question 8: Prohibit Retail Sale of Adult Recreational Use Marijuana”, 2026 Information for Voters, and Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 94C, section 32M, accessed October 20th, 2026. The exact summary says “21 years of age and younger”; proposed section 32L(c) instead says “under the age of 21”. The proposal’s section 5 extends section 32M’s program requirement, including 10 hours of community service, to offenders under 21. The parental-notification requirement and the penalty escalation in proposed section 32L(c) concern offenders under 18. The proposal takes effect on January 1st, 2028, and the adult possession protection would cover 1 ounce, including no more than 5 grams of concentrate. ↩︎
26. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Understanding the Problem”, Countermeasures That Work, Cannabis subsection, accessed October 19th, 2026. The overview distinguishes a positive drug test from proof of impairment and describes limits in connecting cannabis consumption, blood THC concentration, and driving impairment; the research does not establish an impairment diagnosis for the encounters described in the text. ↩︎
27. Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 90, section 24(1)(a)(1), accessed October 19th, 2026. The law already prohibits operating under the influence of marijuana on the specified ways and the specified places. Question 8 does not amend that prohibition. ↩︎
28. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Enforcement of Drug-Impaired Driving”, Countermeasures That Work, accessed October 19th, 2026. The overview describes roadside screening, Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement training, and drug-recognition evaluations, together with performance limitations and reporting limitations; it supplies no Massachusetts marijuana-OUI enforcement rate. ↩︎
29. Cannabis Control Commission, Cosmopolitan Dispensary, Inc., marijuana-retailer application MR282961, generated December 3rd, 2020, PDF pages 2 and 46, accessed October 20th, 2026. The application lists William Flanagan with 5% ownership and control and identifies his earlier service as Fall River mayor; the record establishes historical participation, not a current ownership census or preferential treatment. City of Boston, Verdant Reparative, Inc., host community agreement, July 2024, PDF pages 8 and 14, and “Black History Boston: Tito Jackson”, accessed October 20th, 2026. The agreement identifies Tito Jackson as an owner and executive; the biography establishes his City Council service; the sources do not establish improper influence over a licensing decision. ↩︎
30. Lynn Jolicoeur, “DPH Disqualifies 9 Planned Medical Marijuana Dispensaries”, WBUR, June 27th, 2014, accessed October 20th, 2026. The report describes Medical Marijuana of Massachusetts’s three approvals, which were provisional at first, and its later disqualification. The Department of Public Health questioned a proposed transfer of 25% of gross revenue to a for-profit affiliate and alleged misrepresentation of Senate President Therese Murray’s support. Bill Delahunt denied influence that was both political and improper, and defended his company’s conduct. These medical-program events preceded the 2016 recreational vote. ↩︎
31. Associated Press, “Ex-congressman resigns from medical pot company”, September 16th, 2014, accessed October 20th, 2026. The report establishes Bill Delahunt’s resignation as president. This essay makes no claim that he retained an interest in the company’s later operations. ↩︎
32. Noelle Skodzinski, “Judge orders Massachusetts marijuana licenses restored”, Cannabis Business Times, April 29th, 2015, accessed October 20th, 2026. The contemporaneous account reports the court’s finding that the Department of Public Health had failed to follow its regulations and the court’s order for the Plymouth and Mashpee applications to proceed. A company presentation hosted by the Town of Needham, page 3, dates the ruling to April 27th, 2015, and reports that provisional registrations for those two locations were restored on October 9th, with an invitation to propose a third site; the presentation is the company’s account; this note cites neither the court’s original order nor the registration records. ↩︎
33. United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, United States v. Correia, No. 21-1823, November 2022, accessed October 20th, 2026. The opinion describes Jasiel Correia II’s use of municipal approval authority to extort marijuana vendors and affirms the judgment. This essay makes no claim about dispensary ownership or his current custody status. ↩︎
34. United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, United States v. O’Donovan, No. 24-1200, January 15th, 2025, accessed October 20th, 2026. The court affirmed Sean O’Donovan’s bribery conviction and vacated two honest-services wire-fraud convictions. The case concerned a scheme to influence a Medford marijuana application through a relative of the police chief; the evidence did not establish that the cannabis client knew of the bribe. This essay makes no claim about a current sentence or custody status. ↩︎
35. Eve Zuckoff, “Suffolk Sheriff Steve Tompkins acquitted on corruption charges”, WBUR, September 2nd, 2026, accessed October 20th, 2026. The jury acquitted Steven Tompkins, the Suffolk County sheriff, on both extortion counts concerning his cannabis-company investment; this note cites contemporaneous reporting rather than a verdict form. ↩︎
36. Massachusetts Office of the State Auditor, “The Cannabis Control Commission Did Not Identify All Products Considered Expired and Prevent Their Sale to Consumers Before They Were Retested”, September 26th, 2023, accessed October 20th, 2026. The audit identified 1,517 of 160,625 packages containing material tested more than a year before sale, with associated sales of about $10.2 million; the finding concerns testing compliance; it does not establish contamination or injury. The commission described subsequent control improvements. ↩︎
37. Massachusetts Inspector General Jeffrey Shapiro, letter urging receivership and statutory governance changes, June 18th, 2024, accessed October 20th, 2026. The letter describes unresolved authority and more than $160,000 spent on mediation without an agreed governance charter; the recommendation does not establish that a receiver was appointed or that employees committed fraud. ↩︎
38. Massachusetts General Court, Chapter 65 of the Acts of 2026, approved April 19th, 2026, accessed October 20th, 2026. The emergency law changed the commission to three governor-appointed members and clarified executive authority; the statute establishes reform measures, not proof that earlier failures have been resolved. ↩︎
39. Office of Governor Maura Healey, “Governor Healey Appoints New Cannabis Control Commissioners Following Major Reform Law”, May 19th, 2026, accessed October 20th, 2026. The announcement records appointments to the restructured commission. ↩︎
40. Massachusetts General Court, Chapter 334 of the Acts of 2016, section 4, accessed October 20th, 2026. The law applied the ordinary 6.25% sales tax, imposed a 3.75% marijuana excise, and permitted local governments to add a tax of up to 2%, producing a maximum of 12%; the original legalization measure already contemplated taxation and government regulation. ↩︎
41. Massachusetts General Court, Chapter 55 of the Acts of 2017, sections 12–13, accessed October 20th, 2026. The act raised the marijuana excise to 10.75% and the local maximum to 3%; with the 6.25% sales tax, the taxes totaled up to 20% per transaction; these are purchase taxes, not a 20% tax on business profits. The Department of Revenue’s marijuana-retail-tax regulation exempts purchases that qualify for the medical exemption. The author’s argument about illegal-market incentives is an economic judgment; the reviewed evidence does not quantify purchasing that this tax rate caused in the illegal market or forecast the amount of substitution after repeal. ↩︎
42. Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Question 8: Prohibit Retail Sale of Adult Recreational Use Marijuana”, 2026 Information for Voters, and Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 94C, section 32M, accessed October 20th, 2026. The exact summary says “21 years of age and younger”; proposed section 32L(c) instead says “under the age of 21”. The proposal’s section 5 extends section 32M’s program requirement, including 10 hours of community service, to offenders under 21. The parental-notification requirement and the penalty escalation in proposed section 32L(c) concern offenders under 18. The proposal takes effect on January 1st, 2028, and the adult possession protection would cover 1 ounce, including no more than 5 grams of concentrate. ↩︎
43. Question 8, proposed sections 4 and 6, and Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 94G, section 7 and section 13, accessed October 20th, 2026. The repeal of chapter 94G encompasses its recreational home-growing protections and section 13’s separate public-consumption and vehicle open-container provisions. The proposed section 32L(e) preserves municipal authority over public consumption; these provisions establish no forecast of the proposal’s effect on impaired-driving rates. ↩︎
44. Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Question 9: Firearms Regulation”, 2026 Information for Voters, and Massachusetts General Court, Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024, An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws, accessed October 19th, 2026. “Yes” retains that act; “No” repeals the act. The referendum does not propose repealing all Massachusetts firearms regulation, and the voter guide supplies no judicial determination that the act is unconstitutional. ↩︎
45. Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Question 9, What Will Your Vote Do? and Full Text of Existing Law, 2026 Information for Voters, accessed October 20th, 2026. The Attorney General and Secretary jointly state that “Yes” keeps the law and “No” repeals the law. The referendum concerns Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 rather than the entirety of Massachusetts firearms law. ↩︎