Massachusetts ballot measure · November 3, 2026

Massachusetts Question 1, explained

Public records law for the Legislature and the governor's office. A ballot measure is a yes-or-no question put directly to voters — no candidate is involved, and the wording on the ballot is the wording that becomes law. This page shows that wording first, then what it actually changes.

The official wording

QUESTION 1: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition — Expanding the Public Records Law. Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026? SUMMARY (written by the State Attorney General, as required by law): 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.

This is what appears on the ballot. Everything below explains it.

What it actually means

Massachusetts exempts the Legislature and the governor's office from the public records law that binds every state agency, city and town. Question 1 would end that, with two carve-outs: records created while a policy is being developed, and messages between a legislator's office and a constituent about getting help with a government benefit, service or agency.

If you vote YES

The official statement of effect: "A YES VOTE would make most records held by the Legislature and the Office of the Governor public records under the Massachusetts Public Records Law."
Two exemptions would apply: documents related to the development of public policy, and communications between a legislator's office and constituents reasonably related to a constituent's request for help obtaining government benefits or services or dealing with a government agency.
The policy-development exemption is temporary. Proponents told the legislative committee it covers communications only while a policy is being developed and expires once the policy is developed.
The Executive Office of Administration and Finance found the proposal "has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances."

If you vote NO

The official statement of effect: "A NO VOTE would make no change to the Massachusetts Public Records Law."
The Legislature and the governor's office would continue to claim a blanket exemption from the public records law while every state agency, city and town remains subject to it.
Access to the Legislature would continue through the channels its committee report describes: open hearings, published bills, amendments and roll-call votes, and livestreamed and archived sessions.
Nothing changes about the 2024 measure authorising the state auditor to audit the Legislature, which voters approved and which remains contested separately.

The numbers that matter

Fiscal effect: no discernible material fiscal consequences

Why supporters say YES

"Massachusetts deserves open government. Good government groups rank our state the least transparent in the nation. We're one of only two states where both the Governor's office and the Legislature claim a blanket exemption from the public records law… Question 1 puts the Legislature and the Governor's office under the same public records law as everyone else. It protects constituent privacy, and the Secretary of Administration and Finance certified that it has no cost to taxpayers."
— Official argument in favour, 2026 Information for Voters, authored by State Auditor Diana DiZoglio for the Committee for Transparency and Democracy

Why opponents say NO

"The proposed law includes overly broad and poorly defined exemptions… This limited and temporary exemption will chill open communications by lawmakers, raising significant constitutional concerns, particularly around legislative speech and debate protections. The narrow protection for constituent communications creates serious privacy risks. By only exempting correspondence tied to benefits or agency interaction, the law leaves vulnerable to public disclosure all other general constituent communications, such as emails and letters from citizens expressing personal political views."
— Official argument against, 2026 Information for Voters; the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office notes no organised group was urging a "No" vote when the book was printed and compiled this argument in part from the Legislature's Majority Report
"It's my understanding that the way this ballot initiative may be written is that confidential information about our constituents collected through our offices may not, in every circumstance, be able to be excluded… So much of our work in each office, representatives and senators, deals with constituent services. People call up and talk about incredibly personal information, it could be immigration, it could be domestic abuse."
— Senate President Karen Spilka (D)

What’s genuinely uncertain

There is a live constitutional question. The Legislature's Majority Report argues the measure violates separation of powers by requiring the Secretary of the Commonwealth, an executive officer, to enforce the law against the Legislature. The Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, in an advisory opinion of April 27, 2026, said the petition may raise several significant constitutional questions including separation of powers, and reserved deciding them.
The Attorney General's certification under Article 48 does not test a petition's broader constitutionality, so approval would not settle whether the law survives a court challenge.
No organised committee was urging a "No" vote when the voter guide went to press, so the official argument against was written by the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office rather than by opponents.

The bottom line

Whether the Legislature and the governor's office should be subject to the same public records law as everyone else in Massachusetts; supporters say Beacon Hill exempted itself from a law it wrote for others, while the official argument against says the exemptions are drawn too narrowly to protect constituents and the measure raises separation-of-powers problems.

One neutral sentence describing the tradeoff — not a recommendation.

Sources:ma.omniballot.us sec.state.ma.us ballotpedia.org

Checking it against the official text

The Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth publishes the certified measures and, in most states, an official voter guide with fiscal notes. That is the authoritative version. Everything here is an explanation of it, not a substitute for it.

Confirm this with the official source

Your ballot is determined by your election authority, not by us. Verify your registration, precinct, and sample ballot at Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth.

Other measures on the Massachusetts ballot

Candidates on the same ballot

Everything on the Massachusetts ballot →