For a comprehensive explainer on the 2027 Massachusetts ballot questions, see the Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis.
Paid subcribers will get the Village Green’s nuanced editorial stances on the 9 questions later in the month.
Send your own letters to the editor to: 413villagegreen@gmail.com.
QUESTION 1:
APPLY PUBLIC RECORDS LAW TO STATE’S EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL BRANCHES
Summary:
Executive agencies and towns and cities are legally obligated to comply with public requests for documents. Up until now, though, the law has NOT included the state' Legislature or Judiciary, meaning that the Mass Governor’s office, courts and Congress are exempt from our public records requests.
Question 1 would subject those branches to the same transparency requirements as everyone else.
But it’s not the people who are clamoring for access to the inner workings of the Governor’s office or Congressional meetings. Rather it is Diana DiZoglio, the state auditor, bringing this question forward. In the 2024 election she pushed for Question 1, which 72% of voters approved, and which then gave her the ability to audit the “accounts, programs, activities, and functions of all departments, offices, commissions, institutions, and activities of the state legislature and any authorities or districts created by the state legislature.”
But lawmakers refused to participate in her audit, claiming that her requests violated separation of powers provisions laid out in the state constiution. that’s the conflict that’s brought about the current standoff, and the appearance of Question 1 on this year’s ballot.
Asked to comment on Question 1 for the Village Green, Team DiZoglio offered this statement:
“Massachusetts deserves open government. Good government groups rank our state the least transparent in the nation. We're one of only two states where both the Governor's office and the Legislature claim a blanket exemption from the public records law. Every city, town, and state agency must follow that law, but the politicians on Beacon Hill exempted themselves.
Question 1 puts the Legislature and the Governor's office under the same public records law as everyone else. It protects constituent privacy, and the Secretary of Administration and Finance certified that it has no cost to taxpayers. In 2024, 72% of voters said yes to auditing the Legislature. Beacon Hill is still fighting that vote — but Question 1 will give you and every taxpayer the ability to access public records directly.”
Note 1: Questions of this kind are sometimes used for leverage that allows two sides to reach a compromise. The Massachusetts Senate agreed in May to turn over a limited number of documents to DiZoglio, while claiming the right to withold others. The House of Representatives, for its part, is currently working on passage of a more limited version of their own transparency bill, also in an effort to forestall Question 1, but that bill is still working its way through committees at this late hour, so as of October 13, Question 1 will be on the November 3 ballot.
An October 7 story from WBUR explored the fights that might erupt should should Question 1 pass with voters on November 3, but be replaced by watered-down legislation by the Governor or Legislature.
Note 2: If state voters approve Question 1 and it goes into effect on January 1, 2027 as written, there will be two exceptions. Constituent communications are exempt, so if you email Rep. Leigh Davis, that email chain will not be subject to public records requests. The other exception protects back and forths between legislators, lobbyists or Governor’s office staff communicating about policy as it is being developed.
QUESTION 2:
ALLOW PUBLIC DEFENDERS TO UNIONIZE
Summary:
All criminal defendents in the Commonwealth are entitled to a defense attorney, and between 400-500 lawyers are employed for this purpose as members of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS).
But unlike virtually all other public employees in the state, this cohort of lawyers is not currently allowed to organize for better pay and working conditions. Question 2 would reverse that status quo and allow CPCS attorneys to unionize.
This change would likely lead to their enjoying the benefits which other unionized employees enjoy, and would also, presumably, make the sector more appealing to would-be lawyers for indigent defendants.
The additional money to pay for these improvements, however, would have to come from overstressed public coffers. Added job protections would also make it more difficult to remove attorneys who fail to adequately represent their clients.
QUESTION 3:
ELIMINATE PARTY-CENTRIC PRIMARIES AND SEND TOP 2 FINISHERS TO THE GENERAL
SUMMARY
Political primary elections — organized by the state’s Democratic party and Republican Party — are not well-attended. In 2024 the state primary had a 17% voter turnout compared to the general election two months later with a 68% turnout.
Question #3 would eliminate party-based primaries and hold a party-less, open primary in September instead. The top two finishers from that election, one from each party or two from the same party, would then compete against one another in the general election in November.
Since Massachusetts is an overwhelmingly Democratic-voting state that match-up could often end up as a contest between two Democrats. The change would eliminate the power of party convention-goers from both parties to vet their preferred candidate, as it removes the requirement that statewide candidates win at least 15% of convention delegates to get on the primary ballot.
As it is now, convention delegates have the power to end a candidacy before voters weigh in. Under Question 3, every qualified candidate would earn a place on the ballot no matter how the convention votes. Critics say that eliminating the influence of the parties will enhance the influence of money, and that “qualified candidates” will therefore really mean candidates with loads of money behind them.
Rep. Leigh Davis’ stance on Question 3:
“I’m voting no. I don’t think top-two is the right fit for Massachusetts. California has shown that you can end up with two candidates from the same party in November, or no candidate from one party at all if the vote gets split. I also worry about the cost. You’re competing against everyone from the start and trying to reach a much broader group of voters, which can mean spending a lot more money much earlier.”
Congressional Candidate Nadia Milleron’s stance on Question 3, as stated in her podcast interview with From the Gazebo, dropping Oct 12th:
“In a jungle primary, the people who have more money win and a small person like me, who's an independent, would have no chance at all.”