Massachusetts ballot measure · November 3, 2026

Massachusetts Question 2, explained

Collective bargaining for public defender agency employees. 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 2: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition — Collective Bargaining for CPCS Employees. 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 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.

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

What it actually means

The Committee for Public Counsel Services is the state agency that provides lawyers to people who cannot afford one. Its employees, unlike most other state workers, have no recognised right to form a union and bargain over pay and conditions. Question 2 would give them that right, and would require the agency to ask the governor for the money to pay for any agreement it signs.

If you vote YES

The official statement of effect: "A YES VOTE would specify that Committee for Public Counsel Services employees may form a union to collectively bargain with their employer."
After signing a collective bargaining agreement, CPCS would have to request from the governor the appropriation necessary to fund it.
The law gives employees the choice to organise; it does not itself create a union or set any wage, benefit or working condition.
The Executive Office of Administration and Finance says the law "may have an impact on state finances" because CPCS is funded partly by state appropriations, but that the impact is hard to project given the uncertainty about what bargaining would produce.

If you vote NO

The official statement of effect: "A NO VOTE would make no change to the law governing labor relations for Committee for Public Counsel Service employees."
CPCS employees would remain outside the collective bargaining rights other state employees have and could not form a union to bargain over wages, benefits and working conditions.
CPCS would continue to set employment terms and seek funding as it does now, with no bargaining obligation.
No new budget exposure would arise from bargained agreements at the agency.

The numbers that matter

Fiscal effect: may have an impact on state finances; difficult to project

Why supporters say YES

"CPCS employees provide critical support for the constitutional right to counsel and help ensure that Massachusetts residents who cannot afford an attorney have access to legal representation. Yet, unlike other state employees, CPCS employees do not currently have the right to choose whether to organize and collectively bargain over wages, benefits and working conditions… It simply gives CPCS employees the right to make that choice for themselves."
— Official argument in favour, 2026 Information for Voters, authored by Tom McKeever for Labor Unions for Public Counsel Workers Rights

Why opponents say NO

"Allowing employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) to collectively bargain creates serious operational and fiscal risks for the judiciary. CPCS operates as an independent judicial branch agency tasked with providing constitutional defense to indigent clients. Introducing collective bargaining into this framework could disrupt existing management and supervisory frameworks, introduce ambiguity into lines of authority, and create operational inefficiencies… particularly if they limit the agency's ability to respond flexibly to fluctuating caseloads, staffing needs, and court demands."
— 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

What’s genuinely uncertain

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.
The fiscal effect is genuinely unknown; the state's own statement says it cannot be projected because it depends on bargaining that has not happened.
The measure requires CPCS to request the necessary appropriation, but does not require the governor to include it in the budget or the Legislature to fund it.

The bottom line

Whether the staff of the state's public defender agency should be able to unionise like other state employees, against the concern that bargaining would complicate how an independent judicial branch agency manages caseloads and staffing.

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 →