Massachusetts ballot measure · November 3, 2026

Massachusetts Question 5, explained

New cap on state revenue, with rebates above the cap. 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 5: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition — State Revenue Limit & Rebate. 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 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.

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

What it actually means

Massachusetts already has a law capping how much revenue the state can keep, with anything above the cap refunded to taxpayers — the mechanism that produced refunds in 2022. Question 5 would rewrite the formula: the cap would be last year's net revenue plus the average growth in Massachusetts wages and salaries over the past three years, and would count revenue from the 4% surtax on income over $1 million. Anything above the cap would go back to taxpayers the following year, starting July 1, 2027.

If you vote YES

The official statement of effect: "A YES VOTE 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."
The annual cap would equal the prior year's net state revenue increased by the average growth of Massachusetts wages and salaries over the most recent three years.
Revenue from the surtax on incomes over $1 million would count both in calculating the cap and in deciding whether revenue exceeds it.
Any revenue above the cap would be refunded to taxpayers the following year.
The state's fiscal statement says the proposal "would reduce the amount of money available to support the state budget, which includes local aid for schools and municipal budgets," would reduce the amounts available to build the Stabilization or "rainy day" Fund, and could change how often statutorily-required refunds occur.
The provisions take effect July 1, 2027, and a severability clause keeps the rest in force if any part is struck down.

If you vote NO

The official statement of effect: "A NO VOTE would make no change in the law relative to state revenue collection."
The existing statutory revenue cap and refund mechanism would continue unchanged, on its current formula.
Surtax revenue on incomes over $1 million would continue to be treated as it is now rather than folded into the cap calculation.
The amount available for the state budget, local aid and the Stabilization Fund would not be constrained by the new formula.

The numbers that matter

Fiscal effect: would reduce money available for the state budget, including local aid for schools and municipal budgets, and reduce amounts available to build the Stabilization Fund

Why supporters say YES

"A YES vote sets reasonable limits on the growth of state government revenue and ensures that taxpayers receive refunds when the Commonwealth collects more money than it needs. This proposal modernizes the state's existing laws to create stronger fiscal guardrails, promote accountability, guard against future tax increases, and ensure government growth reflects what taxpayers can afford. It will not cut state spending for important services like education, transportation, or healthcare."
— Official argument in favour, 2026 Information for Voters, authored by Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts

Why opponents say NO

"Question 5 would put a strict limit on state revenue and investment, requiring repeated budget cuts… Question 5 would reduce the state's 'Rainy Day' fund, forcing massive budget cuts to schools, healthcare, affordable housing, and public safety during recessions… Question 5 would include revenue from the 'millionaires' tax' — which funds schools and transportation — in the complex, unpredictable algorithm that sets the revenue limit… Question 5 would even threaten Massachusetts' bond rating."
— Official argument against, 2026 Information for Voters, authored by Colette Berard for Protect Massachusetts' Future

What’s genuinely uncertain

The two official arguments directly contradict each other on the central question. Supporters say the measure "will not cut state spending for important services like education, transportation, or healthcare"; the state's own fiscal statement says it "would reduce the amount of money available to support the state budget, which includes local aid for schools and municipal budgets."
How often the cap would actually bind, and how large any refunds would be, depends on future wage growth and revenue, which no one has projected in the voter guide.
Whether folding surtax revenue into the cap conflicts with the constitutional amendment that created that surtax is not addressed in the state's summary and has not been tested in court.
The measure's effect on the state's bond rating, raised in the argument against, is an assertion by opponents rather than a finding of any rating agency cited in the guide.

The bottom line

Whether to tie the state's allowable revenue to wage growth and rebate anything above it; supporters call it a guardrail that returns excess collections to taxpayers, and the state's own fiscal statement and opponents say it would leave less for the budget, local aid and the rainy day fund.

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 →