Our Positions on the 2026 Ballot Questions
These are the Green-Rainbow Party’s positions on the 2026 ballot questions, adopted by our State Committee on October 19.
The ballot question process has increasingly exposed the corrosive effects of money in our politics and the failures of our legislature. Several questions are backed by misleading big-money campaigns, and they made the ballot with signature gatherers paid for by wealthy donors. Bills to do what Questions 2 and 4 propose have been filed session after session, and the legislature has never passed them into law, even though the Democrats who control nearly all of state government say they support them. On Question 1, lawmakers only moved once it qualified for the ballot, and the House’s version would still shield their own emails.
We can’t forget the many times our legislature has ignored or subverted the results of ballot questions, from refusing to fund the Clean Elections Law voters passed in 1998, to fighting the audit of the legislature that 72% of voters approved in 2024, and cutting the estate tax and the short-term capital gains tax less than a year after voters passed the Fair Share Amendment. The only way to make our government accountable to the people rather than wealthy donors is to keep organizing around our demands and to replace our legislators with candidates who aren’t beholden to the corporate parties. If you’re interested in running for office, get in touch with us.
| GRP position | Why |
|---|---|
|
Question 1 Expanding the Public Records Law YES |
Democracy requires transparency. Massachusetts is one of only two states where both the governor's office and the Legislature exempt themselves from the public records law that every municipal and state agency must follow. Question 1 would make most of their records public. |
|
Question 2 Collective Bargaining for CPCS Employees YES |
Public defenders, social workers, investigators, and other staff at the Committee for Public Counsel Services are barred from unionizing. We support the right of all workers to unionize. Question 2 would give them that right. Fair pay and manageable caseloads keep experienced defenders on the job, enabling us to better guarantee equal justice for people who can't afford a lawyer. |
|
Question 3 State Primary Elections NO |
Question 3 would replace party primaries with a single all-party primary that sends only the top two finishers to November. In California and Washington, we have seen top-two primaries shut out independents and candidates from smaller parties, and favor wealthy self-funded candidates and those with corporate backing. While our election system is broken and requires significant reform, alternative voting systems (like RCV, STAR, and approval), fairer ballot access standards for candidates, and robust public funding would actually address the issues Question 3 claims to solve. |
|
Question 4 Election Day Registration YES |
Voters in 23 states and Washington, D.C., including Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Connecticut, can already register or update their address at the polls on Election Day. Question 4 would bring that to Massachusetts. Removing the deadline would let thousands more eligible people vote, especially students and renters. |
|
Question 5 State Revenue Limit & Rebate NO |
Voters approved the Fair Share "millionaires tax," a 4% surtax on income over $1 million, to fund schools and transportation. Question 5 would rewrite the state's 1986 tax cap and count that money toward it. The rebates it triggers would send the biggest checks to the highest earners while forcing repeated budget cuts and pushing cities and towns to raise property taxes or lay off teachers and firefighters. We need to expand the capacity of our state to provide for its residents, not hamper it so the wealthiest can continue hoarding money at our expense. |
|
Question 6 Natural Resource Conservation Fund YES |
Question 6 would create a "Nature for All" fund from sales tax already paid on sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf. As an eco-socialist party, we support dedicating funds to environmental protection. |
|
Question 7 Single Family Homes YES |
Question 7 would allow single-family homes on lots of at least 5,000 square feet that already have public water and sewer. Our platform recognizes municipal zoning requirements are often an impediment to constructing more housing, and so we support relaxing those requirements here. However, we also recognize that housing is a human need which markets will always fail to meet. We continue to call for increased construction of public and social housing. |
|
Question 8 Prohibit Retail Sale of Adult Recreational Use Marijuana NO |
We supported the legalization of cannabis in 2016 and continue to support it now. Question 8 would end licensed recreational marijuana sales after nearly a decade of legal sales. We reject the criminalization of all substances and any efforts to re-expand the racist drug war or limit civil liberties in Massachusetts. |
|
Question 9 Firearms Regulation NO POSITION |
Question 9 is a referendum on Chapter 135, the 2024 state gun law covering ghost guns, assault-style weapons, red-flag petitions, and where guns can be carried. A Yes vote keeps the law and a No vote repeals it. We have decided to take no position on this question. |