Massachusetts ballot measure · November 3, 2026

Massachusetts Question 3, explained

Replacing party primaries with a single top-two primary. 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 3: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition — State Primary Elections. 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 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.

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

What it actually means

Massachusetts now holds separate Democratic, Republican and other party primaries, and each party's winner goes to November. Question 3 would replace them with one primary listing every candidate regardless of party; any voter could vote for any candidate, and the top two finishers — who could be from the same party — would advance to the general election. Governor and lieutenant governor would run as a pair from the primary onward.

If you vote YES

The official statement of effect: "A YES VOTE would eliminate separate party primaries for state elections and require a single primary in which all candidates appear on one ballot, voters could vote for any candidate, and the top two candidates would advance to the general election."
Only two candidates would appear on the November ballot for each state office, and they could both belong to the same party.
Candidates for governor and lieutenant governor would have to run and be listed jointly on the primary ballot, not separately as they are now.
A group whose candidates for any statewide office won at least 3% of the ballots cast in the state primary would gain political party status.
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 laws governing primary elections."
Each party would continue to hold its own state primary, and each party's nominee would advance to the general election, alongside any independent or minor-party candidates who qualify.
Candidates for governor and lieutenant governor would continue to run separately in the primary and appear together only in November.
Party status would continue to be determined by the existing rules rather than by a 3% primary threshold.

The numbers that matter

Fiscal effect: no discernible material fiscal consequences
Threshold for party status: 3% of ballots cast in the state primary for any statewide office

Why supporters say YES

"Massachusetts elected officials should work for us, not insiders… Many elections are over before most of us ever cast a ballot. Candidates can be blocked at party conventions. Today, two-thirds of the legislature is running unopposed… All-Party Primaries will bring accountability and transparency to Massachusetts politics by making elections more competitive, forcing politicians to listen. All candidates appear on your primary ballot, and the top two advance to November where they need a majority of votes to win."
— Official argument in favour, 2026 Information for Voters, authored by Danielle Allen for the Coalition for Healthy Democracy

Why opponents say NO

"Similar top-two systems in California and Washington have favored wealthy, self-funded candidates who can out-advertise crowded fields and the corporate PACs seeking to purchase offices, while sidelining grassroots candidates and historically marginalized and underrepresented groups… Third-party and independent candidates would be shut out of the general election… This proposal would limit voter choice by allowing only two candidates to advance to November — even if they belong to the same party."
— Official argument against, 2026 Information for Voters, authored by Vanessa A. Snow for Voter Rights MA

What’s genuinely uncertain

The two official arguments make opposite empirical claims about the same systems: proponents say a top-two primary increases competition, opponents point to California and Washington as evidence it advantages well-funded candidates. Neither claim is settled, and the voter guide states the Commonwealth does not certify the accuracy of either argument.
The proponents' argument says the top two "need a majority of votes to win" in November. With only two candidates that follows arithmetically, but the measure does not add a separate majority requirement.
How the change would affect independent and minor-party candidates, who currently reach the November ballot without a primary, is central to the opposing case and is not addressed in the state's summary.

The bottom line

Whether every candidate should run in one primary open to every voter, with the top two going to November, or whether parties should keep choosing their own nominees; supporters say it would force uncontested incumbents to compete, opponents say it narrows the November choice to two and shuts out independents and minor parties.

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 →