Massachusetts ballot – Massachusetts is set to put eight new initiative petitions before voters in November, but lawmakers declined to approve them last month, forcing ballot committees back to signature drives. Critics want tighter limits on the initiative system, arguing it has be
By June, Massachusetts had already made its first move in the fight over ballot initiatives—then walked away from most of the options.
This year, eight initiative petitions are likely headed to voters on the November ballot. The Legislature, which had a chance to approve the measures last month, opted not to approve any of them. That means ballot committees must gather additional signatures this month—another round in a process that has become increasingly contentious as the number of initiatives has grown.
Massachusetts voters have passed several major laws through initiative in past elections. In 2016, an initiative legalized marijuana. In 2022, a different initiative created a tax on millionaires.
But in February, lawmakers publicly complained about how the system works. House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka criticized the ballot measure process. with Mariano describing it as “fraught with peril.” A legislative committee tasked with voting on potential initiatives held a series of tense hearings in March. including measures that some targeted at the Legislature itself.
Supporters of direct democracy say the growing friction is the point, not a flaw. Dane Waters, founder of the Initiative and Referendum Institute, said representative government matters—but that voters still need a way to hold lawmakers accountable when they “choose not to do things.”
“We believe that representative government is one of the most fundamental, best ways to govern,” Waters said. “But lawmakers. for whatever reason. whether through personal interest or conflict. sometimes just choose not to do things. and there needs to be a mechanism for the people to hold them accountable.”.
The fight over initiatives isn’t limited to Massachusetts. An increasing number of states have attempted to restrict the practice, even as direct democracy advocates argue ballot measures serve as a check and balance on representative government.
What an initiative is—and why the process matters
In Massachusetts, ballot initiatives allow citizens to adopt laws or constitutional amendments, depending on the state’s rules. Massachusetts permits both.
The initiative process developed during the Populist and Progressive movements of the 1890s and early 1900s, when reformers believed state governments were controlled by moneyed special interests rather than the people.
The history is not abstract. In 1912, an Oregon initiative gave women the right to vote. In 1996, a California initiative banned affirmative action. In 2012, Maine voters legalized same-sex marriage.
Massachusetts uses an indirect initiative system. Citizens must collect signatures to qualify for the ballot. but in Massachusetts. petitions are first presented to the Legislature rather than placed on the ballot without legislative input. If lawmakers do not pass an indirect initiative, petitioners must collect additional signatures.
Initiatives are different from referendums, which ask voters to accept or reject legislation recently adopted by the Legislature.
In every state with an initiative process, citizens must collect signatures—though requirements vary by state.
Which states allow initiatives
Twenty-three states have some form of initiative process, with most in the West. Waters said many of those states entered the union during the Progressive Era and were “more prone to want to have that mechanism versus states that had been around since the founding of our nation.”
Eastern states with initiative processes include Massachusetts, Florida and Maine, though those states tend to have more stringent processes.
Waters pointed to a long record of usage: from 1904 to 2024, California had the most initiatives (396), followed by Oregon (379). Approval rates were 35% in California and 36% in Oregon. Colorado (259), North Dakota (202) and Washington (192) followed.
“If you were to factor out California and Oregon, I think it would probably represent like 30% to 40% of all the initiative usage ever,” Waters said.
He also argued that states rarely respond to ballot proposals with a legislative compromise. “I respect representative government, but I seriously am hard pressed to find a single legislature that is supportive or sympathetic to the people using the process,” he said.
New Bedford lawmakers defend the mechanism
Even as legislative leaders have criticized the process, some Massachusetts lawmakers said they do not see ballot initiatives as a threat.
Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral, D-New Bedford, said ballot measures act as a “useful democratic barometer” that reflects residents’ priorities. In a written statement. Cabral said the ballot initiative process is “an alternative avenue” alongside direct engagement between constituents and elected officials. and that it is “a valuable component of the democratic system in Massachusetts.”.
Rep. Christopher Hendricks, D-New Bedford, said initiatives can “nudge the Legislature sometimes in the right direction, where it otherwise wouldn’t happen.” He pointed to the Fair Share Amendment, which voters passed in 2022 and created an additional tax on millionaires.
Rep. Christopher Markey, D-Dartmouth, echoed that view, citing the 2016 initiative that legalized marijuana.
Hendricks and Markey also argued that some issues are too complex for voters to decide at the ballot box. They pointed to a proposed cut to the state income tax from 5% to 4%—which the Supreme Judicial Court recently struck from the ballot. Markey said technical bills are difficult for voters to understand fully and that lawmakers often hear from people in special interest groups and advocacy groups to learn the “pluses and minuses” in more detail.
Waters disputed the common claim that voters cannot weigh complicated policy. “For democracy to work, you have to have faith in the voters,” he said. “If you’re going to trust voters to choose among a candidate, then you have to have faith in them that they can choose among an issue.”
Rep. Steven Ouellette, D-Westport, said that as long as a question is legal and constitutional, the Legislature should institute it, adding, “Unless there’s some kind of legal issue argument, we are planning on going forward with what the people want.”
Rep. Mark Syvlia. D-Fairhaven. said the ballot measure process is “important. ” but also that the Legislature’s chance to weigh in matters. “(The Legislative review educates) the public about what a ballot question does and doesn’t do. and also identifies for the Legislature where there may be an opportunity to enact a potential ballot initiative that would be really beneficial. ” Sylvia said. He said he believes the Legislature did not approve any of the November questions because of their substance. not out of disdain for the process.
Massachusetts’ initiative rules are unusually strict
Massachusetts has one of the most difficult initiative processes in the country.
The process begins with 10 petitioners who submit a proposed law or amendment to the attorney general for approval.
If the initiative is certified, petitioners must collect signatures equal to 3% of the total votes cast for governor at the last election—74,574 signatures for the November 2026 election.
Massachusetts only allows indirect initiatives. If lawmakers do not pass the initiative, petitioners must collect additional signatures of 0.5% of the gubernatorial votes—12,429 signatures for the November election.
For constitutional amendments, signatures require only one round. Those initiatives must also be approved by two consecutively elected legislatures.
Waters compared the Massachusetts approach to North Dakota, which has an indirect initiative process that he described as easier. He pointed to differences such as the absence of distribution requirements in North Dakota, while Massachusetts limits how many signatures can come from one county.
He said North Dakota signatures are presumed valid, while in Massachusetts they must be certified.
The timeline is also shorter in Massachusetts: petitioners have nine weeks to collect the first round of signatures and eight weeks for the second round. In North Dakota, petitioners have one year.
Critics say the threats are widening
Waters and other direct democracy advocates warn of growing threats to the ballot measure process.
“There’s been this full frontal attack in trying to make the process more difficult,” Waters said, noting that many ballot measure requirements don’t apply to the legislative process.
A 2026 report from the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center says states are “deploying a shared and increasingly sophisticated playbook to limit voter power.”
Several states have tried to regulate signature gathering. The report referenced restrictions on how and where petitioners collect signatures.
Lawmakers in states including Arizona. Florida and North Dakota have adopted or proposed supermajority requirements for citizen-led initiatives—requiring at least 60% of voters to approve them. Other states have adopted single-subject rules, which the report said “grant courts and officials wide discretion.”.
Waters said the threat comes from “an inherent conflict between lawmakers and the people.” He added that lawmakers “typically … don’t like the people messing with them when they’ve been elected to enact laws.”
The struggle has shown up in recent election history. In 2023. Ohio legislators held a special election to try to raise the total signatures requirement. require signatures from each of the state’s counties. and raise the approval threshold to 60% ahead of a measure to keep abortion legal. Voters rejected the rule change and then approved the abortion-rights measure.
After Nebraska and Missouri voters overwhelmingly passed paid sick leave initiatives in 2024, both state legislatures adopted bills to undermine the measures.
Calls for reform inside Massachusetts
Even in Massachusetts, lawmakers and scholars have argued for changes to the state’s initiative process.
In March, the Massachusetts Senate passed a bill seeking to limit paid signature gatherers, including a prohibition on paying workers based on the number of signatures collected.
Ten states prohibit ballot committees from using paid signature-gathering firms, and Syvlia said he would be open to Massachusetts doing the same after reviewing the practice’s impact. “(Paying signature gatherers) doesn’t feel democratic to me,” he said.
Markey also said paid signature gatherers undermine the grassroots nature of the process, while Ouellette argued it is not a problem if done legally.
“When you need 1,000 or 10,000 signatures, that’s a lot of work,” Ouellette said.
Waters said he shares Ouellette’s view. “We pay Uber drivers, we pay people to pick up our laundry, we pay dog walkers … Why is it wrong to pay people to collect signatures?” Waters said. “It doesn’t matter who collects the signatures. The reality is, only Massachusetts voters get to vote on it.”
Waters suggested other reforms to increase access, including extending circulation periods and allowing digital signatures.
What Article 48 is doing to the debate
Criticism of Massachusetts’ initiative process—Article 48 in the state constitution—has intensified since a 2024 initiative law granted State Auditor Diana DiZoglio authority to audit the Legislature’s performance. Many experts and most lawmakers say the question violated the state constitution’s separation of powers.
Ballot measures cannot infringe on certain constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, or involve excluded subjects. But the attorney general cannot weigh in on whether the questions propose laws that would violate the state constitution. Instead. she certifies the proposal if it is in proper form. isn’t similar to initiatives from the past two elections. and adheres to subject matter regulations.
Her office writes a summary of the proposal that appears on the ballot.
Attorney General Andrea Campbell said in May that the process should change to allow her office to analyze the proposal’s legality.
Syvlia shares the view that petitioners would benefit from knowing earlier whether their question is constitutional. He pointed to the unresolved question about the audit and to a proposal to reform legislative stipends, which the state’s Supreme Judicial Court deemed unconstitutional in May.
The House, the Senate, or the governor can request an advisory opinion from the Supreme Judicial Court about a ballot proposal before it goes to voters.
In mid-June. the court struck a proposed income tax cut from the November ballot after concluding the attorney general’s summary of the initiative proposal was “significantly misleading.” Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts. a supporter of the tax cut initiative. said afterward it will consider “advocating for procedural reforms” for ballot preparations.
Jerold Duquette, a political scientist who lives in Massachusetts and teaches at Central Connecticut State University, has also pushed for Article 48 reforms, though he does not advocate eliminating the initiative process.
Since the audit question passed, Duquette and other experts have argued the constitution should be amended to exclude ballot questions that concern constitutional provisions about legislative functioning and the separation of powers.
Duquette also said ballot question committees are not solely at fault for the trouble with Article 48. He said: “The politicians. journalists. and newspaper editors who play along without giving sufficient critical attention to the constitutional questions raised by experts share blame with the sponsors of constitutionally questionable ballot measures.”.
What voters will see in November
This November, voters will likely consider eight initiative petitions on the ballot:
repealing the law that legalized recreational marijuana;
applying the public records law to the Legislature and governor’s office;
creating an “all-party” primary ballot system;
allowing voters to register on Election Day;
overriding local zoning laws to reduce barriers to single-family starter homes;
changing the method of calculating the state tax revenue limit;
giving Committee for Public Counsel Services workers the right to collectively bargain;
redirecting sales tax on sport and outdoor recreational equipment into a conservation fund.
Second-round signatures were due June 17 and need to be certified by the Secretary of State in July. Legislative compromises could result in a ballot committee agreeing to withdraw a proposal before then.
Three other initiative questions were rejected from the ballot due to Supreme Judicial Court decisions: rent control, an income tax cut, and reform of legislators’ stipends.
As the signature drives begin again and the court continues to weigh the boundaries of Article 48. the fight in Massachusetts is no longer just about which ideas reach the ballot. It is about who gets to set the rules of direct democracy—and how much power lawmakers are willing to surrender before November arrives.
Massachusetts ballot initiatives initiative petitions Ron Mariano Karen Spilka Dane Waters Article 48 Supreme Judicial Court signatures direct democracy