State Primary Elections
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 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.
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.
Not published by the state
The proposed law has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances
Massachusetts elected officials should work for us, not insiders. But for years insiders have held the advantage. Many elections are over before most of us ever cast a ballot. Candidates can be blocked at party conventions. Today, two-thirds of the legislature is running unopposed. They can take voters for granted and ignore important issues like affordable housing, energy costs, better schools, and the audit 72% of us demanded. All-Party Primaries will bring accountability and transparency to Massachusetts politics by making elections more competitive, forcing politicians to listen. All candidates appear on your primary ballot, and the top two advance to November where they need a majority of votes to win. Insiders have less control and we get fresh voices running for office. More competition means more accountability. Legislators who know voters can replace them listen to us and deliver real results. Vote Yes on Question 3 for accountability and competition.
Danielle Allen Coalition for Healthy Democracy 124 Washington St., Suite 101 Foxborough, MA 02035 617-987-4192
VOTE NO ON QUESTION 3 Similar top-two systems in California and Washington have favored wealthy, self-funded candidates who can out-advertise crowded fields and the corporate PACs seeking to purchase offices, while sidelining grassroots candidates and historically marginalized and underrepresented groups such as candidates of color and women. Third-party and independent candidates would be shut out of the general election, and working-class candidates would lose out on institutional support and access to party resources. This proposal would limit voter choice by allowing only two candidates to advance to November — even if they belong to the same party — reducing competition, lowering voter participation, worsening inequities, and narrowing debate. Massachusetts voters deserve real choices, not a system that rewards money and name recognition over community support. Vote No.
Vanessa A. Snow Voter Rights MA P.O. Box 317 Roslindale, MA 02131 617-383-4336 www.voterrightsma.com
Both columns use the same layout. Text is quoted from the official state guide. Views expressed belong to the argument authors.