Massachusetts ballot measure · November 3, 2026

Massachusetts Question 6, explained

Nature for All Fund for natural resource conservation. 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 6: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition — Natural Resource Conservation Fund. 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 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 take effect on July 1, 2027.

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

What it actually means

Question 6 would set up a Nature for All Fund and steer the state sales and use tax already collected on sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses into it — half in the first year, all of it from July 2028 — to be spent on land and water conservation, parks and trails. It does not create or raise any tax. The money would still go through the Legislature's annual appropriation, and a 15-member board would set the spending rules.

If you vote YES

The official statement of effect: "A YES VOTE would create a fund that could be utilized for natural resource conservation that would receive some state taxes collected on the sale and use of sporting goods and recreational vehicles, and the use of golf courses."
The fund would receive 50% of those state taxes in its first year and 100% after July 1, 2028, subject to appropriation by the Legislature, excluding sales tax already transferred to the MBTA State and Local Contribution Fund and the School Modernization and Reconstruction Trust Fund.
The Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs could spend the money on conservation or restoration of land protecting drinking water, streams, rivers, lakes, coasts, farms and forests, on connectivity between open spaces and lands of indigenous cultural significance, and on creating and managing parks, trails, greenspaces and outdoor recreation access.
Money could go to state agencies, municipalities, conservation charities, tribal governments and regional public entities; public and private donations would be allowed; and the comptroller could not sweep the fund's year-end surplus.
A 15-member Nature for All Board — five state officials and ten public members appointed by the governor, including representatives of underserved communities and indigenous peoples and at least one person with conservation expertise — would set the spending rules, and annual reporting on spending in environmental justice communities would be required.
The state's fiscal statement says the law "would have a significant impact on state and local budgets," automatically diverting tens of millions of dollars a year from the operating budget, with substantial implementation costs.

If you vote NO

The official statement of effect: "A NO VOTE would not create this natural resource conservation fund or change how sales and use taxes are spent."
Sales and use tax on sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses would continue to flow to the general operating budget and existing transfers, supporting whatever the Legislature appropriates.
Conservation spending would continue to depend on the annual budget, bond bills and existing programmes rather than a dedicated fund.
No new board, no new reporting requirement, and no implementation costs.

The numbers that matter

Fiscal effect: significant impact on state and local budgets; an estimated tens of millions of dollars a year diverted from the operating budget, plus substantial implementation costs
Share of the covered sales and use tax going to the fund: 50% in the first year, then 100% after July 1, 2028

Why supporters say YES

"We all need clean water and nature. Voting YES on 6 protects water, land, and wildlife in Massachusetts — without raising taxes. Voting YES dedicates as much as $100 million/year to: Protect clean drinking water; Prevent flooding and storm damage; Reduce pollution in rivers, lakes, and the ocean; Create and improve parks, trails, and greenspaces for public use; Conserve forests, family farms, and natural wildlife habitat… Question 6 doesn't raise taxes or create a new tax."
— Official argument in favour, 2026 Information for Voters, authored by Mass Audubon

Why opponents say NO

"The proposed law creates an unstable fiscal framework by permanently earmarking up to 100% of state sales tax revenues from sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses… Implementation of the measure would require the reallocation or reduction of funds presently directed toward other state initiatives, raising questions of opportunity costs… Even if approved by the voters, the funds may not be allocated to the 'Nature for All Fund,' as the Legislature retains exclusive authority over appropriations decisions."
— 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

The fund is "subject to appropriation by the Legislature," which both sides agree means the money is not guaranteed. The argument against makes that its central point; the argument in favour describes the dedication as permanent.
The two sides disagree about the scale: the campaign says as much as $100 million a year, while the state's fiscal statement says a full analysis is not feasible and estimates tens of millions of dollars a year diverted from the operating budget. The Commonwealth does not certify the accuracy of the campaign figure.
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 measure does not raise any tax; the disagreement is entirely about where existing revenue goes.

The bottom line

Whether the sales tax already paid on sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf should be set aside for conservation, parks and water protection, or stay in the general budget where it currently funds other things; no tax rate changes either way.

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 →