2026 Ballot Question 9: Firearms Regulation

Question 9:  Do you approve of a law summarized below, which was approved by the House of Representatives on July 18, 2024 by a vote of 124 to 33, and approved by the Senate on July 18, 2024 by a vote of 35 to 5?

SUMMARY

As required by law, summaries are written by the State Attorney General.

This law makes a number of changes to Massachusetts laws governing firearms.

The law adds school administrators and licensed healthcare providers as parties permitted to ask a court to issue an Extreme Risk Protection Order – requiring an individual to surrender or relinquish their firearm licenses, permits, and firearms - if an individual is a present danger to self or others. The law also provides that, when issuing a Harassment Prevention Order, a court may also order the surrender of firearms licenses, permits, and firearms.

The law imposes penalties for possessing, creating, and transferring untraceable "ghost gun" firearms and requires all firearms except antiques and relics, including unfinished frames and receivers that can be readily made into a finished product, to have serial numbers. The law includes privately-made guns like 3D-printed guns within the provisions governing untraceable "ghost gun" firearms.

The law changes firearms licensing requirements to: (1) allow local licensing authorities to request prior license and permit information from the state, as well as access petitions for involuntary mental health commitments denied by a court in addition to prior involuntary commitments, as a part of their review of applications for licenses to carry firearms, firearm ID cards, and licenses to sell firearms; (2) require an individual to be 21 years of age to own semiautomatic rifles or shotguns; (3) add the possibility of incarceration of up to six months for a second offense of failing to report a firearm loss or theft; and (4) enable 12-15 year olds to apply for a self-defense spray permit with parental permission, and 15 to 18 year olds to apply independently.

The law allows local firearm licensing authorities to transfer the responsibility to inspect firearm dealers to the State Police. The law requires local licensing authorities to attend statewide training regarding those inspections. It requires dealers to confiscate expired or suspended licenses and report them to the state and to local licensing authorities.

The law changes the definition of "machine gun" to include bump stocks, trigger cranks, Glock switches and auto sears among the devices whose possession and use are subject to penalties. It expands the definition of "silencer" to include the parts used to construct a silencer.

The law clarifies how to determine whether a firearm is an assault-style weapon and the circumstances under which a person may continue to possess assault-style weapons and large capacity feeding devices they already own.

The law requires the state Firearm Control Advisory Board and the state Secretary of Public Safety and Security to review and update the rosters of prohibited assault-style firearms, approved firearms, and approved firearms sold for target shooting.

The law clarifies requirements relating to the carry and transport of firearms in motor vehicles and ATVs. It prohibits the carrying of firearms in government buildings, polling locations, and schools, with certain exceptions.

The law expands data compilation and reporting requirements to and from the state, and creates a publicly-accessible dashboard of anonymized aggregate firearm data, along with a commission to study that data.

The law requires the State Police to provide training and a test for new applicants for licenses to carry or Firearm ID cards.

The law establishes two special legislative commissions – one to examine funding for violence prevention services, and one to study emerging firearms technology.

The law criminalizes discharging a firearm and striking a building in use.

WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO

As required by law, the statements describing the effect of a "yes" or "no" vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

A YES VOTE would keep in place the law, which increases the regulation of firearms, including ghost guns, machine guns, and assault-style weapons.

A NO VOTE would repeal this law.

STATEMENT OF FISCAL CONSEQUENCES

As required by law, statements of fiscal consequences are written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.

Since the passage of this safety law in 2024, the Commonwealth has made significant investments to implement the law including training employees, promulgating new gun licensure processes, and developing IT infrastructure. Repealing the law would require the Commonwealth to expend resources in suspending or re-directing those investments.

Additional info - https://ma.omniballot.us/sites/25/vg/app/vig/voter-guide/info/18

-------------

via Dan Kennedy:

https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

"Three local news outlets — CommonWealth Beacon, The Bay State Banner and El Planeta — unveil a detailed guide to this fall's state ballot questions. 

It's freely available for republication online and in print."   https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

Reminder: Detailed guide to this fall's state ballot questions

via Dan Kennedy:

https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

"Three local news outlets — CommonWealth Beacon, The Bay State Banner and El Planeta — unveil a detailed guide to this fall's state ballot questions. 

It's freely available for republication online and in print."   https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

The Secretary of the CommonWealth has also publshed the "Red Book"

https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/research-and-statistics/2026-ballot-questions.htm

2026 Ballot Question 8: Prohibit Retail Sale of Adult Recreational Use Marijuana

Question 8: 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

As required by law, summaries are written by the State Attorney General.

The proposed law would change the type and amount of marijuana that may legally be possessed in Massachusetts by repealing the laws that legalize, regulate, and tax the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana in Massachusetts. The proposed law would also permit persons 21 years of age and older to possess 1 ounce or less of marijuana including no more than 5 grams in the form of concentrate, and to gift or transfer to another person 21 years of age and older 1 ounce or less of marijuana including no more than 5 grams in the form of concentrate. The proposed law would also impose a civil penalty of $100 and forfeiture of the marijuana for the possession of marijuana between the weight of 1 and 2 ounces.

For persons 21 years of age and younger, the proposed law would make the possession of 2 ounces or less of marijuana a civil infraction subject to a $100 fine, forfeiture of the marijuana, completion of a drug awareness program and community service, and notification to their parents or legal guardian of the offense and penalties.

The proposed law would allow currently licensed adult recreational marijuana businesses to apply on an expedited basis to become a licensed medical marijuana dispensary and to sell their remaining inventory of adult recreational marijuana to medical marijuana dispensaries. The proposed law would retain the Cannabis Control Commission but modify its authority so it would regulate only the medical marijuana market.

The proposed law states that, if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2028.

WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO

As required by law, the statements describing the effect of a "yes" or "no" vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

A YES VOTE would prohibit the legalization, regulation, and taxation of the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana, and change the penalties for possession of marijuana.

A NO VOTE would make no change to the law relative to marijuana.

STATEMENT OF FISCAL CONSEQUENCES

As required by law, statements of fiscal consequences are written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.

By repealing the laws that legalize and tax the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana, the proposed law would reduce the amount that state and municipal governments receive from the taxation of those sales. In fiscal year 2025, taxation of the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana raised approximately $280 million in state revenue and $50 million in local revenue. The state budget, which is supported by tax revenue, funds local aid for schools and municipal budgets.

Additional info - https://ma.omniballot.us/sites/25/vg/app/vig/voter-guide/info/17

--------------------

via Dan Kennedy:

https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

"Three local news outlets — CommonWealth Beacon, The Bay State Banner and El Planeta — unveil a detailed guide to this fall's state ballot questions. 

It's freely available for republication online and in print."   https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

2026 Ballot Question 7: Single Family Homes

Question 7: 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

As required by law, summaries are written by the State Attorney General.

This proposed law would allow single-family homes to be built in a residentially zoned area as long as the land on which it is to be constructed is at least 5,000 square feet, has at least 50 feet of land bordering the street, road, or public way that it faces, and has access to public sewer and water services.

The proposed law would allow cities and towns to reasonably regulate certain aspects of those single-family homes, including their height, distance from neighboring buildings, open space, parking requirements, and whether they can be rented out on a short-term basis. The proposed law would also allow the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities to issue guidance or regulations to administer the proposed law.

WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO

As required by law, the statements describing the effect of a "yes" or "no" vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

A YES VOTE would allow single-family homes to be built on lots of 5,000 square feet or more in residential areas, subject to reasonable local regulation of certain aspects of those homes.

A NO VOTE would make no change to the law relative to building single-family homes.

STATEMENT OF FISCAL CONSEQUENCES

As required by law, statements of fiscal consequences are written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.

If the proposed law enables the growth of housing in communities, it could provide positive new growth revenues to municipalities. However, it is difficult to project the potential scale of new growth tied to the proposed law. The proposed law thus has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances.

Additonal info - https://ma.omniballot.us/sites/25/vg/app/vig/voter-guide/info/16

-------------

via Dan Kennedy:

https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

"Three local news outlets — CommonWealth Beacon, The Bay State Banner and El Planeta — unveil a detailed guide to this fall's state ballot questions. 

It's freely available for republication online and in print."   https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

2026 Ballot Question 6: Natural Resource Conservation Fund

Question 6: 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

As required by law, summaries are written by the State Attorney General.

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 require the ten members of the public to include representatives of underserved communities and indigenous peoples and at least one person with expertise or experience in natural resource conservation. The proposed law would allow the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs to spend money from the Nature for All Fund to hire staff to manage the fund. The proposed law would also require the Nature for All Board to establish rules about how the money in the Nature for All Fund should be spent, including rules regarding alignment with environmental justice principles, access to and restoration of lands and natural resources of indigenous cultural significance, promotion of affordable housing development, and other matters regarding spending and bond issuance.

The proposed law would require the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs to submit an annual report to various state committees regarding the funds spent to buy or improve land in cities and towns containing environmental justice populations.

The proposed law would take effect on July 1, 2027.

WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO

As required by law, the statements describing the effect of a "yes" or "no" vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

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.

A NO VOTE would not create this natural resource conservation fund or change how sales and use taxes are spent.

STATEMENT OF FISCAL CONSEQUENCES

As required by law, statements of fiscal consequences are written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.

The proposed law would have a significant impact on state and local budgets. While a full fiscal analysis is not feasible, it is estimated that, on an annual basis, the proposed law would automatically divert tens of millions of dollars of tax receipts that are currently supporting the state operating budget to the new fund. This proposed law would also have substantial implementation costs.

Additional info - https://ma.omniballot.us/sites/25/vg/app/vig/voter-guide/info/15

-----------------

via Dan Kennedy:

https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

"Three local news outlets — CommonWealth Beacon, The Bay State Banner and El Planeta — unveil a detailed guide to this fall's state ballot questions. 

It's freely available for republication online and in print."   https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

2026 Ballot Question 5: State Revenue Limit & Rebate

Question 5: 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

As required by law, summaries are written by the State Attorney General.

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.

WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO

As required by law, the statements describing the effect of a "yes" or "no" vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

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.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the law relative to state revenue collection.

STATEMENT OF FISCAL CONSEQUENCES

As required by law, statements of fiscal consequences are written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.

The proposed law would put stricter limits on allowable annual revenue growth available for budgeting. As a result, the proposal would reduce the amount of money available to support the state budget, which includes local aid for schools and municipal budgets. The proposal would also reduce the amounts available to build the state's Stabilization, or "rainy day," Fund – a reserve of money set aside to help Massachusetts manage economic downturns or emergencies without raising taxes or making major spending cuts. Depending on future conditions, the proposal could change the frequency of statutorily-required refunds to taxpayers.

Additional info - https://ma.omniballot.us/sites/25/vg/app/vig/voter-guide/info/14

-----------

via Dan Kennedy:

https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

"Three local news outlets — CommonWealth Beacon, The Bay State Banner and El Planeta — unveil a detailed guide to this fall's state ballot questions. 

It's freely available for republication online and in print."   https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

2026 Ballot Question 4: Election Day Registration

Question 4: 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

As required by law, summaries are written by the State Attorney General.

This proposed law would permit eligible individuals to register to vote or update their voter registration address on Election Day.

An individual who is eligible to vote could register to vote on Election Day by going to the polling place in the precinct where they live during voting hours and presenting proof of residency and signing a written oath. Proof of residency could be a valid photo identification, or documentation showing the individual's name and the address where the individual resides, such as a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, residential lease, wireless telephone statement, paycheck, current student fee statement or other document from a post-secondary school, or another government document or correspondence. The written oath would require the individual to certify that they are a citizen of the United States, are at least 18 years old, are not legally prohibited from voting, and have not and will not vote in the same election at another location. The oath would require the individual to acknowledge that providing false information is a felony punishable by not more than 5 years imprisonment or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

If an individual did not present proof of residency, they would be allowed to cast a provisional ballot, which would be counted only if the individual returned to provide the required information before the close of polls for a municipal election; within two days after a state primary; or within six days after a state election.

Individuals who register to vote on Election Day would be registered to vote in future elections as well as in the election taking place that day.

Individuals who are already registered to vote would not be able to change their political party affiliation on Election Day.

The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2028.

WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO

As required by law, the statements describing the effect of a "yes" or "no" vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

A YES VOTE would permit eligible citizens to register to vote or to update their voter registration address at their polling place on Election Day.

A NO VOTE would make no change to the laws governing voter registration.

STATEMENT OF FISCAL CONSEQUENCES

As required by law, statements of fiscal consequences are written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.

The proposed law has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances.

Additional info - https://ma.omniballot.us/sites/25/vg/app/vig/voter-guide/info/13

--------------

via Dan Kennedy:

https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

"Three local news outlets — CommonWealth Beacon, The Bay State Banner and El Planeta — unveil a detailed guide to this fall's state ballot questions. 

It's freely available for republication online and in print."   https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

2026 Ballot Question 3: State Primary Elections

Question 3: 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

As required by law, summaries are written by the State Attorney General.

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.

WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO

As required by law, the statements describing the effect of a "yes" or "no" vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

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.

A NO VOTE would make no change to the laws governing primary elections.

STATEMENT OF FISCAL CONSEQUENCES

As required by law, statements of fiscal consequences are written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.

The proposed law has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances

Additional info - https://ma.omniballot.us/sites/25/vg/app/vig/voter-guide/info/12

---------

via Dan Kennedy:

https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

"Three local news outlets — CommonWealth Beacon, The Bay State Banner and El Planeta — unveil a detailed guide to this fall's state ballot questions. 

It's freely available for republication online and in print."   https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

2026 Ballot Question 2: Collective Bargaining for Committee for Public Counsel Services ("CPCS") Employees

Question 2: 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

As required by law, summaries are written by the State Attorney General.

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.

WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO

As required by law, the statements describing the effect of a "yes" or "no" vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

A YES VOTE would specify that Committee for Public Counsel Services employees may form a union to collectively bargain with their employer.

A NO VOTE would make no change to the law governing labor relations for Committee for Public Counsel Service employees.

STATEMENT OF FISCAL CONSEQUENCES

As required by law, statements of fiscal consequences are written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.

The proposed law may have an impact on state finances. CPCS receives its funding, in part, from state government appropriations. The fiscal impact of the proposed law is difficult to project due to the uncertainty regarding the outcomes of any such collective bargaining by CPCS employees.

Additional info - https://ma.omniballot.us/sites/25/vg/app/vig/voter-guide/info/11

------------

via Dan Kennedy:

https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

"Three local news outlets — CommonWealth Beacon, The Bay State Banner and El Planeta — unveil a detailed guide to this fall's state ballot questions. 

It's freely available for republication online and in print."   https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

2026 Ballot Question 1: Expanding the Pubic Records law

Question 1: 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

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.

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.

A NO VOTE would make no change to the Massachusetts Public Records Law.

STATEMENT OF FISCAL CONSEQUENCES

As required by law, statements of fiscal consequences are written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.

The proposed law has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances.

Additional details from the "Red Book" - https://ma.omniballot.us/sites/25/vg/app/vig/voter-guide/info/10

-------------

via Dan Kennedy:

https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

"Three local news outlets — CommonWealth Beacon, The Bay State Banner and El Planeta — unveil a detailed guide to this fall's state ballot questions. 

It's freely available for republication online and in print."   https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

Detailed guide to this fall's state ballot questions

via Dan Kennedy:

https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

"Three local news outlets — CommonWealth Beacon, The Bay State Banner and El Planeta — unveil a detailed guide to this fall's state ballot questions. 

It's freely available for republication online and in print."   https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-question/

The Secretary of the CommonWealth has also publshed the "Red Book"

https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/research-and-statistics/2026-ballot-questions.htm

MA Ballot QUESTION 5: Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers

SUMMARY

As required by law, summaries are written by the State Attorney General.

This proposed law would gradually increase the minimum hourly wage an employer must pay a tipped worker, over the course of five years, on the following schedule:

• To 64% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2025;

• To 73% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2026;

• To 82% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2027;

• To 91% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2028; and

• To 100% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2029.

The proposed law would require employers to continue to pay tipped workers the difference Under the proposed law, if an employer pays its workers an hourly wage that is at least the state minimum wage, the employer would be permitted to administer a “tip pool” that combines all the tips given by customers to tipped workers and distributes them among all the workers, including non-tipped workers.

STATEMENT OF FISCAL CONSEQUENCES

As required by law, statements of fiscal consequences are written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.

There are no direct fiscal consequences on the Commonwealth or municipalities because they generally do not employ tipped employees. Nevertheless, this measure will affect proposed state and municipal revenues and expenditures due to impacts on employee and business income and earnings. While those impacts are difficult to project due to the lack of reliable data, increasing the minimum hourly wage of tipped employees will likely increase state income tax collections because employees will earn more in hourly wages from which state income tax is withheld. The impacts on gratuity earnings and gratuity tax reporting are unknown

WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO

As required by law, the statements describing the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth

A YES VOTE would increase the minimum hourly wage an employer must pay a tipped worker to the full state minimum wage implemented over five years, at which point employers could pool all tips and distribute them to all non- management workers.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the law governing tip pooling or the minimum wage for tipped workers

IN FAVOR: 

Vote Yes for FAIRNESS - 

It’s fair for Workers:

Instead of being paid the current tipped worker wage of just $6.75 an hour, Massachusetts tipped workers deserve the full minimum wage with tips on top. Workers in 7 other states earn a full wage plus tips, and they enjoy

robust tips and growing restaurants where menu prices are comparable to Massachusetts. This law would create greater financial stability and predictability, acknowledging workers’ skills and professionalism.

It’s fair for Employers:

Many Massachusetts small businesses are already paying the full minimum wage plus tips. Big restaurant corporations should do the

same. This would reduce employee turnover and improve service quality.

It’s fair for Consumers:

Big restaurant corporations are not paying their fair share and are forcing consumers to cover their employees’ wages through tips. Tips should be a reward for good service, not a subsidy for low wages paid by large corporations.

Estefania Galvis One Fair Wage 

11 Converse Ave

Malden, MA 02148

813-898-9136

www.yeson5ma.com

AGAINST: 

This question is funded by a radical group from California.

Tipped employees have made it abundantly clear the way they earn money does not need to be changed. State and Federal law guarantee them the $15 hourly minimum wage with many earning over $40/hr and 90% reporting at least $20/hr. A recent survey also showed that 88% oppose ‘tip pools’ where tips are shared with non-service employees and 90% believe that if tipped wages are eliminated, they will earn less.

Other attempts to implement this have seen catastrophic results. In Washington, D.C., nearly 10% of tipped employees have lost or left their jobs. This follows increases in menu prices, the implementation of 20% ‘service fees’ and a wave of closures.

This would reduce overall wages for servers, increase costs for restaurants and skyrocket the cost of eating out. It will be disastrous with many neighborhood restaurants being forced to close.

Doug Bacon

Former Server and Bartender, Current Restaurant Owner

Committee to Protect Tips 

160 E Main St # 2

Westborough, MA 01581 

www.ProtectTips.org

---------------------

For this information on Ballot Question 5 in one PDF -> 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/180F0k-IwcYOTt9GvMmrEhkpjdzkZwHYh/view?usp=drive_link

Full PDF of the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Information for Voters "red book" -> https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/download/research-and-statistics/IFV_2024.pdf

Additional voting info for the State can be found -> 

https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elections-and-voting.htm

Specific info for Franklin, MA voters can be found on the Town Clerk page ->

https://www.franklinma.gov/town-clerkelection-administrato

MA Ballot QUESTION 5: Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers 

MA Ballot QUESTION 4: Limited Legalization and Regulation of Certain Natural Psychedelic Substances

SUMMARY

As required by law, summaries are written by the State Attorney General.

 

This proposed law would allow persons aged 21 and older to grow, possess, and use certain natural psychedelic substances in certain circumstances. The psychedelic substances allowed would be two substances found in mushrooms (psilocybin and psilocyn) and three substances found in plants (dimethyltryptamine, mescaline, and ibogaine). These substances could be purchased at an approved location for use under the supervision of a licensed facilitator. This proposed law would otherwise prohibit any retail sale of natural psychedelic substances. This proposed law would also provide for the regulation and taxation of these psychedelic substances.

This proposed law would license and regulate facilities offering supervised use of these psychedelic substances and provide for the taxation of proceeds from those facilities’ sales of psychedelic substances. It would also allow persons aged 21 and older to grow these psychedelic substances in a 12-foot by 12-foot area at their home and use these psychedelic substances at their home. This proposed law would authorize persons aged 21 or older to possess up to one gram of psilocybin, one gram of psilocyn, one gram of dimethyltryptamine, 18 grams of mescaline, and 30 grams of ibogaine (“personal use amount”), in addition to whatever they might grow at their home, and to give away up to the personal use amount to a person aged 21 or over.

This proposed law would create a Natural Psychedelic Substances Commission of five members appointed by the Governor, Attorney General, and Treasurer which would administer the law governing the use and distribution of these psychedelic substances. The Commission would adopt regulations governing licensing qualifications, security, recordkeeping, education and training, health and safety requirements, testing, and age verification. This proposed law would also create a Natural Psychedelic Substances Advisory Board of 20 members appointed by the Governor, Attorney General, and Treasurer which would study and make recommendations to the Commission on the regulation and taxation of these psychedelic substances.

This proposed law would allow cities and towns to reasonably restrict the time, place, and manner of the operation of licensed facilities offering psychedelic substances, but cities and towns could not ban those facilities or their provision of these substances.

The proceeds of sales of psychedelic substances at licensed facilities would be subject to the state sales tax and an additional excise tax of 15 percent. In addition, a city or town could impose a separate tax of up to two percent. Revenue received from the additional state excise tax, license application fees, and civil penalties for violations of this proposed law would be deposited in a Natural Psychedelic Substances Regulation Fund and would be used, subject to appropriation, for administration of this proposed law.

Using the psychedelic substances as permitted by this proposed law could not be a basis to deny a person medical care or public assistance, impose discipline by a professional licensing board, or enter adverse orders in child custody cases absent clear and convincing evidence that the activities created an unreasonable danger to the safety of a minor child.

This proposed law would not affect existing laws regarding the operation of motor vehicles while under the influence, or the ability of employers to enforce workplace policies restricting the consumption of these psychedelic substances by employees. This proposed law would allow property owners to prohibit the use, display, growing, processing, or sale of these psychedelic substances on their premises. State and local governments could continue to restrict the possession and use of these psychedelic substances in public buildings or at schools.

This proposed law would take effect on December 15, 2024.

WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO

As required by law, the statements describing the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

A YES VOTE would allow persons over age 21 to use certain natural psychedelic substances under licensed supervision and to grow and possess limited quantities of those substances in their home, and would create a commission to regulate those substances.

 

A NO VOTE would make no change in the law regarding natural psychedelic substances.

STATEMENT OF FISCAL CONSEQUENCES

As required by law, statements of fiscal consequences are written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.

This measure would establish a 15% state excise tax for the sale of natural psychedelic substances, which would be available for spending from a dedicated fund; however, the revenue generating impact is unknown due to the lack of data for the new market being proposed. This measure would also allow for a local tax option that could generate local sales

IN FAVOR: 

Vote YES on 4 to provide safe, regulated access to promising natural psychedelic medicines for treatment-resistant PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Psychedelics will be available in approved therapeutic settings under the supervision of trained and licensed facilitators, NOT sold in stores to take home.

Research from leading medical institutions including Mass General Brigham, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, and Johns Hopkins shows that psychedelic medicines can be effective treatments for depression and anxiety. In fact, the FDA recently granted psilocybin a “breakthrough therapy” designation.

For many people who are suffering, daily medications and other standard treatments aren’t working. Over 6,000 veterans die by suicide annually, and countless more struggle from service-related trauma. Natural psychedelic medicine can also offer patients with a terminal diagnosis relief from end-of-life anxiety and help them find peace.

That’s why question 4 is supported by doctors, mental health providers, and veteran advocates.

Vote YES to expand mental health options.

Lieutenant Sarko Gergerian, 

Mental Health Counselor (MHC)

Massachusetts for Mental Health Options 

14 Sullivan Street

Boston, MA 02129

781-205-9737

https://maformentalhealth.org

AGAINST: 

MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, VETERANS, AND RECOVERY GROUPS URGE NO ON QUESTION 4

• Question 4 would decriminalize psychedelics, open for-profit centers, allow for growth in a 12- foot by 12-foot area in homes and distribution statewide. A black market is inevitable with this amount of home growth.

• In recent years, driver’s license revocations for drugged driving rose 65% and fatal DUI crashes increased over 50%. With 1 in 3 frequent psychedelic users reporting

driving under the influence of psychedelics

in the past year, this will increase.

• The psychedelic ibogaine has life- threatening cardiotoxicity, heart failure can occur days after one dose.

• Accidental consumption of edibles is especially

dangerous to children and pets.

• The centers aren’t required to be run by medical professionals, cannot provide critical care during adverse reactions, and aren’t prohibited from giving psychedelics to high- risk patients like those with schizophrenia, bipolar illness, and pregnant or breastfeeding women.

Dr. Anahita Dua

Surgeon, Massachusetts General Hospital 

Associate Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School

Coalition For Safe Communities 

11 Beacon Street, Suite 1125

Boston, MA 02108 

www.SafeCommunitiesMA.com

--------------------

For this Ballot Question 4 info in one PDF -> 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/18-U5Not3y5DPiQFimcoGHUg61Ah84bZF/view?usp=drive_link

Full PDF of the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Information for Voters "red book" -> https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/download/research-and-statistics/IFV_2024.pdf

Additional voting info for the State can be found -> 

https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elections-and-voting.htm

Specific info for Franklin, MA voters can be found on the Town Clerk page ->

https://www.franklinma.gov/town-clerkelection-administrato

MA Ballot QUESTION 4: Limited Legalization and Regulation of Certain Natural Psychedelic Substances

MA Ballot QUESTION 3: Unionization for Transportation Network Drivers

SUMMARY

As required by law, summaries are written by the State Attorney General.

The proposed law would provide Transportation Network Drivers (“Drivers”) with the right to form unions (“Driver Organizations”) to collectively bargain with Transportation Network Companies (“Companies”)-which are companies that use a digital network to connect riders to drivers for pre-arranged transportation-to create negotiated recommendations concerning wages, benefits and terms and conditions of work. Drivers would not be required to engage in any union activities. Companies would be allowed to form multi- Company associations to represent them when negotiating with Driver Organizations. The state would supervise the labor activities permitted by the proposed law and would have responsibility for approving or disapproving the negotiated recommendations.

The proposed law would define certain activities by a Company or a Driver Organization to be unfair work practices. The proposed law would establish a hearing process for the state Employment Relations Board (“Board”) to follow when a Company or Driver Organization is charged with an unfair work practice. The proposed law would permit the Board to take action, including awarding compensation to adversely affected Drivers, if it found that an unfair work practice had been committed. The proposed law would provide for an appeal of a Board decision to the state Appeals Court.

This proposed law also would establish a procedure for determining which Drivers are Active Drivers, meaning that they completed more than the median number of rides in the previous six months. The proposed law would establish procedures for the Board to determine that a Driver Organization has signed authorizations from at least five percent of Active Drivers, entitling the Driver organization to a list of Active Drivers; to designate a Driver Organization as the exclusive bargaining representative for all Drivers based on signed authorizations from at least twenty-five percent of Active Drivers; to resolve disputes over exclusive bargaining status, including through elections; and to decertify a Driver Organization from exclusive bargaining status. A Driver Organization that has been designated the exclusive bargaining representative would have the exclusive right to represent the Drivers and to receive voluntary membership dues deductions.

Once the Board determined that a Driver Organization was the exclusive bargaining representative for all Drivers, the Companies would be required to bargain with that Driver Organization concerning wages, benefits and terms and conditions of work. Once the Driver Organization and Companies reached agreement on wages, benefits, and the terms and conditions of work, that agreement would be voted upon by all Drivers who has completed at least 100 trips the previous quarter. If approved by a majority of votes cast, the recommendations would be submitted to the state Secretary of Labor for approval and if approved, would be effective for three years. The proposed law would establish procedures for the mediation and arbitration if the Driver Organization and Companies failed to reach agreement within a certain period of time. An arbitrator would consider factors set forth in the proposed law, including whether the wages of Drivers would be enough so that Drivers would not need to rely upon any public benefits. The proposed law also sets out procedures for the Secretary of Labor’s review and approval of recommendations negotiated by a Driver Organization and the Companies and for judicial review of the Secretary’s decision.

The proposed law states that neither its provisions, an agreement nor a determination by the Secretary would be able to lessen labor standards established by other laws. If there were any conflict between the proposed law and existing Massachusetts labor relations law, the proposed law would prevail. 

The Board would make rules and regulations as appropriate to effectuate the proposed law.

The proposed law states that, if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO

As required by law, the statements describing the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

A YES VOTE would provide transportation network drivers the option to form unions to collectively bargain with transportation network companies regarding wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of work.

 

A NO VOTE would make no change in the law relative to the ability of transportation network drivers to form unions.

STATEMENT OF FISCAL CONSEQUENCES

As required by law, statements of fiscal consequences are written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.

The proposed law has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances.

IN FAVOR: 

A YES vote will give Massachusetts rideshare drivers, who work for companies

like Uber and Lyft, the option to join a union while also maintaining driver flexibility and independence. The option to join a union is guaranteed for most workers, but rideshare drivers currently don’t have that choice. Vote YES to allow rideshare drivers the option to choose a union.

Roxana Rivera United for Justice

26 West Street, 6th Floor Boston, MA 02111

401-965-3555

www.DriversNeedaUnion.org

AGAINST: 

DRIVERS AND RIDERS URGE NO ON QUESTION 3

Question 3 would RAISE THE PRICES FOR ALL RIDERS, funding union pockets, not drivers’ pockets.

This law gives Politicians the right to set rules with NO accountability and creates a new radical labor category that is inconsistent with federal labor law.

Drivers in Massachusetts ALREADY receive:

• Base of $32.50 per hour with yearly increases

• Paid Sick Leave

• Paid Family Medical Leave

• Healthcare Stipend

• On-the-Job Injury Insurance

• Anti-Discrimination Protections

• Domestic Violence Leave

• Anti-Retaliation Protections

• Appeals Process

Question 3 does not really create bargaining for workers. Drivers will have no control over leadership of the union and will pay significant dues without real representation.

This proposal is not fair to Drivers and allows just 2 ½ percent of drivers to force unionization and leaves many Drivers without a voice.

Vote No on Question 3.

Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance Boston, MA

617-553-4115

www.massfiscal.org

----------------------------

For the info on Question 3 in one PDF file ->   https://drive.google.com/file/d/17wbdLhkJCAaIuFOSiQ7NmnsJCwhWylX9/view?usp=drive_link

Full PDF of the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Information for Voters "red book" -> https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/download/research-and-statistics/IFV_2024.pdf

Additional voting info for the State can be found -> 

https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elections-and-voting.htm

Specific info for Franklin, MA voters can be found on the Town Clerk page ->

https://www.franklinma.gov/town-clerkelection-administrato

MA Ballot QUESTION 3: Unionization for Transportation Network Drivers