Expanding the Public Records Law
Argument AGAINST was compiled by the Secretary of the Commonwealth (no organized opposition), per M.G.L. c.54 §54 — not written by opponents.
Online HTML guide is bot-blocked (Incapsula); data from official PDF via block-level extraction.
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.
Not published by the state
The proposed law has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances.
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. You have a right to see what your government is doing with your hard-earned taxpayer dollars. Please vote YES on Question 1.
Diana DiZoglio Committee for Transparency and Democracy 16 Rosewood Ave. Ayer, MA 01432 978-984-7747 www.dianaforma.com/ballot
As of the printing of this book, there was no organized group urging a “No” vote on Question 1. The information below has been compiled by the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, in part from arguments presented in the Legislature’s Majority Report. The argument below does not reflect the opinions of the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth. The proposed law includes overly broad and poorly defined exemptions. It would exempt from public disclosure documents related to the development of public policy, but only during policy development. These records would become public once the policy is developed. This limited and temporary exemption will chill open communications by lawmakers, raising significant constitutional concerns, particularly around legislative speech and debate protections. The narrow protection for constituent communications creates serious privacy risks. By only exempting correspondence tied to benefits or agency interaction, the law leaves vulnerable to public disclosure all other general constituent communications, such as emails and letters from citizens expressing personal political views, sharing sensitive local grievances, or criticizing lawmakers. This lack of comprehensive privacy protection will negatively affect civic engagement and deter residents from contacting their elected officials. Ultimately, this measure creates a flawed framework that fails to deliver genuine accountability while actively compromising constituent privacy.
“If no argument is received by the secretary from the principal proponents or opponents of a measure within the time allowed by this section, the secretary shall prepare such argument.” – M.G.L. c. 54 § 54.
Both columns use the same layout. Text is quoted from the official state guide. Views expressed belong to the argument authors.