Both sides mention the right to counsel
Both arguments in the voter guide mention legal services for people who cannot afford a lawyer. One says employees support the right to counsel. The other warns bargaining could affect services.
Question 2 and the vote on a union for public defenders
Election 2026 · Question 2 explainer
Question 2 and the vote on a union for public defenders
Listen: short summary
Election 2026 guide
Short summary read by Kerry Jane. It is not the full article.
Read the summary text
Question 2 is about public defenders. It would let employees of the state public defender agency, known as CPCS, choose whether to form a union and bargain over pay and working conditions. A Yes vote allows that. A No vote keeps current law. Supporters say these employees carry heavy caseloads and have no formal voice in management. Opponents say bargaining could disrupt the agency's management and its ability to respond to changing caseloads. As of October twenty sixth, the Yes committee has reported about one point one million dollars, and no committee against is listed. Read the full explainer, with every source and the data, at capeanncurrent.com slash elections. The Cape Ann Current takes no position.
Question 2 asks whether employees of the state's public defender agency may form a union and bargain with their employer. Right now, the state's public employee bargaining law does not cover them. Voters decide on Tuesday, November 3.
This explainer takes no position on Question 2. Figures were checked against the cited sources on October 26, 2026.
Part of our series on all nine statewide questions. See the Election 2026 guide. Other articles: Question 1 and Question 3.
The short version
What voters are deciding, in plain words.
- The question. The Committee for Public Counsel Services, called CPCS, is the state agency that provides lawyers to people charged with crimes who cannot afford one. Question 2 would let CPCS employees form a union and bargain with their employer.
- A Yes vote. The Secretary of the Commonwealth's 2026 Information for Voters guide says a Yes vote would let CPCS employees form a union and bargain collectively, which means as a group. After CPCS signs a contract, it would have to ask the Governor for the money needed to carry it out.
- A No vote. The same guide says a No vote leaves the current labor relations law for CPCS employees as it is.
- What it does not do. A Yes vote does not create a union by itself. Employees would still have to organize. Bar advocates, the private lawyers who handle most court appointed cases, are not covered, according to SEIU Local 888.
- The cost. The state budget office says the effect on state finances is hard to project. It depends on what a union and the state agree to later.
- The campaign. Unions back Question 2. OCPF shows $1,083,060 raised as of Oct. 26, 2026. No committee is registered against it.
What is on the ballot
A change to one state labor law, written by petition.
Type. Question 2 is an initiated state statute. That means citizens wrote a law and gathered signatures to put it on the ballot. It is not a change to the state constitution.
Exact effect. The state already has a law, Chapter 150E, that lets public employees bargain with the state. The Secretary of the Commonwealth's guide says Question 2 changes the meaning of “employer” in that law. For CPCS employees, the employer would be CPCS “or its designee.” The question also adds CPCS to a section of the law that already lists other state bodies, such as the State Lottery Commission. Boston.com describes it as putting CPCS employees alongside other state workers who can already bargain.
What it leaves open. The law does not create a union. The Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis, as reported by GBH, said a union would need “broad coordination” among CPCS supervisors, a future union, the Governor and the Legislature. GBH also reports that SEIU Local 888 president Tom McKeever said the proposal gives CPCS employees the same process other public employees use. They would use it to decide whether to organize.
Effective date. Not found in the sources we reviewed.
Can it be changed later? The sources we reviewed do not discuss this for Question 2. In an April 2026 opinion about a different question, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) noted that the Legislature keeps the power to change or repeal a law that voters approve. The state Attorney General certified the petition only on procedural grounds, which means she checked that it followed the rules. The Legislature's committee noted that this means no one has reviewed whether the measure is constitutional.
Lawsuits. We found no court case challenging Question 2.
What this word means: bargaining unit
A bargaining unit is a group of employees who negotiate together with their employer, often through a union. Who belongs in the unit is a key question. In March, Representative Michael Day, a co-chair of the legislative hearing, asked whether supervisors and the staff they supervise could be in the same unit. State House News Service reported this.
How we got here
Past union attempts, a pay dispute, then a ballot petition.
Union rights history
Pay and staffing
Ballot process
A union petition for public defenders is rejected. The reason is that CPCS and its predecessor were not a defined public employer under the law, according to State House News Service.
A second petition is rejected for the same reason, according to State House News Service.
A third petition argues CPCS workers could bargain under the private sector labor law. The Commonwealth Employment Relations Board dismisses it because CPCS is a public entity, according to State House News Service.
Bills to allow CPCS bargaining are filed in session after session and never reach the Governor. Boston.com says five sessions. The Boston Globe says at least six. We could not confirm which count is right.
Many bar advocates stop taking new cases over pay, according to GBH and Boston.com.
Lawmakers raise bar advocate pay by $20 an hour over two years, starting with $10 in August 2025. The Legislature also funds $40 million to hire more than 300 staff attorneys, according to Boston.com.
SEIU Local 888 and CPCS public defenders file the ballot petition, according to SEIU Local 888.
A Senate bill on CPCS bargaining (Senate Bill 1843) clears the Joint Committee on Public Service. It goes to Senate Ways and Means, according to State House News Service.
The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions holds a hearing. No one testifies against the petition. The SJC the same day declines to order higher bar advocate pay.
A majority of the committee recommends that the Legislature take no action. That sends the question toward the ballot, according to the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
The state Inspector General releases a report on indigent defense, which means legal help for people who cannot pay. It says the system is “broken, expensive and resistant to oversight.” CPCS calls the report inaccurate, according to WBUR.
The second $10 bar advocate raise takes effect.
Election Day.
Key point: attempts to win bargaining rights go back to 1979. Each was turned down because of how the law defines CPCS.
What a Yes vote and a No vote would bring
Concrete changes, who is affected, and what stays the same. Uncertain items are labeled.
If Yes wins
- The law changes. CPCS is named as the employer for its employees under the public employee bargaining law.
- Who could organize. SEIU Local 888 says the covered workers are lawyers, social workers, administrative assistants, investigators and IT staff.
- A choice, not an order. Employees would decide whether to organize. If they do, a union and the state would negotiate wages, benefits and working conditions, according to the voter guide.
- Money. After signing a contract, CPCS must ask the Governor for the funding. WBUR reports the Governor and Legislature would have to approve it. The cost is Uncertain.
- Open design questions. Uncertain Who would be in a unit? How would supervisors fit in? How would a contract work with caseload rules and a lawyer's duty to clients? Chief Counsel Anthony Benedetti raised caseload standards, hiring and pay, according to State House News Service.
If No wins
- The law stays as it is. CPCS employees would not have a legal path to a union under the current statute.
- Who is affected. The same group of lawyers and staff, roughly 800 to 860 people by various counts (see the data section).
- Other routes. A bill (Senate Bill 1843) was pending in the Senate in March. We found no report of what happens to it after the election. Uncertain
- Money. No new bargaining costs from this measure. Other costs, such as the staff attorney hiring funded in 2025, continue on their own track.
- Supporters' note. Supporters say they turned to the ballot after failed efforts in the Legislature. We found no statement about their plans after a No vote.
What stays the same either way
Bar advocates are private lawyers paid by the state for each case. GBH reports they handle about 80% of cases for people who cannot afford a lawyer. They are independent contractors and are not part of Question 2. Their pay raises of 2025 and 2026 are already law. Staff attorneys at CPCS handle the remaining cases.
The arguments, in their own words
From the Secretary of the Commonwealth's 2026 Information for Voters guide, then the case each side makes in public. Neither the state nor the Current confirms these claims.
Argument for
- CPCS employees support the constitutional right to counsel.
- Unlike other state employees, they cannot now choose whether to organize and bargain over pay, benefits and working conditions.
- The guide's argument ends: “Vote YES to give CPCS employees the right to choose.”
Written by Tom McKeever, Labor Unions for Public Counsel Workers Rights.
Argument against
- Bargaining could disrupt the agency's management and supervisor structure.
- It could blur lines of authority and cause inefficiencies.
- It could limit CPCS's ability to respond to changing caseloads and court demands, which could affect legal services.
No organized group wrote an argument. The Secretary of the Commonwealth's office compiled this one from the Legislature's Majority Report and does not endorse it.
The case each side makes in public
Supporters say
- Public defenders such as Tanvi Verma told lawmakers that caseloads are heavy and that staff have no responsive voice in management. Verma said “our only support is ourselves,” according to GBH.
- McKeever has said a union would provide “just cause protection,” and that better conditions would help keep lawyers.
- Finn Collom, a public defender on the campaign, wants a “seat at the table” on working conditions, according to Boston.com.
- Shira Diner, a Boston University law lecturer, said keeping lawyers on the job (retention) has been a problem “for years.” She sees a union as a path to a more stable system.
Concerns raised say
- The Legislature's committee report cited expert testimony that bargaining could “disrupt existing management and supervisory frameworks.”
- Representative Michael Day asked how public defenders' ethical duties fit with union membership, according to State House News Service.
- Evan Horowitz of the Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis said bargaining over wages could strain the agency's budget, and talks could cause delays, according to Boston.com. He also said the lack of organized opposition suggests the risks are not large.
- CPCS executive director Aditi Goel stressed keeping flexibility to handle sudden surges in cases, according to Boston.com.
Who is campaigning, and the money
| Supporting Question 2 | Opposing Question 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Campaign | Labor Unions for Public Counsel Workers Rights | No organized campaign. State campaign finance officials are not tracking opposition spending, according to GBH. |
| Money | $1,083,060 in receipts, $1,062,100 spent and $20,960 cash on hand (OCPF, as of Oct. 26, 2026). News reports earlier in October said about $1 million, all from two unions: the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) and SEIU Local 888 (WBUR, Oct. 2; Boston Globe, Oct. 7; GBH, Oct. 19). | No committee registered with OCPF. $0. |
| Organizations and people | SEIU Local 888 (Tom McKeever), NAGE (David Holway), public defenders. | None named. The Legislature's committee report raised concerns (see above). The state budget office said the cost is hard to project. |
| Neutral | CPCS leadership says it has taken no position. The Sixth Amendment Center also takes no position, according to Boston.com. | |
Key point: one side has an organized, funded campaign and the other has none. So the public arguments for a No vote come mostly from official documents.
The numbers
Polls, staff counts, pay rates and past votes. Every figure shows its source, date and unit.
Two polls on Question 2
YesNoUndecidedPlain: said they did not understand the question
Sources: Boston.com, Aug. 19, 2026; WBUR, Oct. 19, 2026. The August Yes share adds 15% who would definitely and 30% who would probably vote Yes. The No share adds 10% and 14%. Unit: percent of respondents.
Key point: in the August poll 45% leaned Yes and 24% leaned No. In the October poll 53% leaned Yes and 19% leaned No, and about one in seven still said they did not understand the question. A Boston Globe newsletter said a separate MassINC poll found more than one in four voters undecided on Question 2. The Suffolk University poll of October 14 to 18 did not give Question 2 numbers in the report we read.
How many people work at CPCS? The sources differ
| Count | What it counts | Source and date |
|---|---|---|
| 864 | All CPCS employees, including 425 attorneys | Chief Counsel Anthony Benedetti, as reported by State House News Service, March 2026 |
| About 425 | Public defenders (staff attorneys) | GBH, March 18, 2026 |
| 487 | 384 trial lawyers, 91 non trial lawyers and 12 senior management lawyers | SEIU Local 888, Aug. 11, 2025 |
| About 800 | All affected workers, including 400 plus attorneys | GBH, Sept. 29 and Oct. 19, 2026 |
| About 500 | Attorneys, plus several hundred other staff | WBUR, Oct. 2, 2026 |
Key point: reports put CPCS lawyers anywhere from 425 to about 500, and all employees from about 800 to 864. The numbers were taken at different times, during a hiring push funded in 2025, so the gap may reflect growth. We could not confirm that.
Hourly pay for private court appointed lawyers (bar advocates)
Source: GBH, Mar. 18, 2026. Unit: dollars per hour. Bars start at zero. This chart is about bar advocates, who are not covered by Question 2. It is background on the pay debate.
Key point: Massachusetts pays $85 an hour for district court appointments, below the other three New England rates listed.
The same Cape Ann towns on a past union question: 2024 Question 3
YesNo
Source: Secretary of the Commonwealth, PD43+ election statistics, 2024 statewide Question 3 (rideshare drivers collective bargaining), municipal results, downloaded Oct. 26, 2026. Unit: percent of Yes and No votes, blanks left out. We added up the statewide town totals ourselves.
Key point: on the 2024 rideshare drivers union question, Gloucester and Rockport voted Yes, with 53.7% and 55.5%. Essex and Manchester-by-the-Sea voted No, with 51.4% and 50.9%. That was a different group of workers, so it does not predict how towns will vote on Question 2.
Data we looked for and did not find. We did not find CPCS salary scales, CPCS turnover rates, or a cost estimate for a contract. The state budget office says it cannot project the cost. The Inspector General's June 2026 report says CPCS staff attorneys carry fewer cases than staff attorneys in similar statewide systems. It also says Massachusetts has the highest cost per new case among them. CPCS calls the report inaccurate. The report gives 2,227 hearings after the 2025 work stoppage, with about 1,689 dismissed cases (Office of the Inspector General, June 10, 2026). These figures describe the wider system, not the effect of Question 2.
How other places handle it
Public defenders already have unions in several places. This is a short list of documented examples, not a full survey of all fifty states.
| Place | What is documented | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Connecticut | Public defenders voted in 2016 to form a union with AFSCME. They signed a first contract in March 2019. | American Bar Association, Criminal Justice magazine |
| Los Angeles County, California | A public defenders' union through AFSCME was formally recognized by the county in 2018. | American Bar Association |
| Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | In 2019, defenders at the Defender Association voted 142 to 65 to join the UAW. The unit covers about 200 lawyers. | American Bar Association |
| Lancaster County, Pennsylvania | In May 2019, public defenders voted to form a union through a Teamsters local. | American Bar Association |
| New York City | The Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, founded in 1969, represents more than 1,000 attorneys at several defender groups. | American Bar Association |
| New Hampshire and Minnesota | Boston.com lists these, with Connecticut and New York City, as places with unionized public defenders. We did not find details. | Boston.com, Oct. 16, 2026 |
Key point: the examples cover states, counties and nonprofit defender offices, and the legal setup differs in each. The American Bar Association article also reports that supervisors in some places described discipline and staff moves as slow under union rules. The article carries no date, and its latest event is from December 2019, so newer facts may exist.
Where people agree, and what nobody knows yet
Many describe a strained system
Supporters, the Inspector General and lawmakers all describe a system under pressure after the 2025 bar advocate work stoppage, when many bar advocates stopped taking new cases. They disagree about causes and fixes.
No one testified against it
No one testified against the petition at the March hearing, and no group is campaigning against it. Concerns raised so far are about how it would work.
CPCS leaders say they are neutral
Chief Counsel Anthony Benedetti said leadership's role is “not to advocate for a particular outcome.” He stressed that any framework must keep the duty to provide counsel.
Open questions nobody can answer yet
- Would employees choose to organize, and who would be in the bargaining unit?
- How would a contract fit with caseload rules and a lawyer's duties to clients?
- What would a contract cost, and would the Governor and Legislature fund it?
- Would bargaining with the executive branch work for an agency that sits under the judicial branch, as Boston.com reports?
- What would happen to the bargaining bill in the Senate after a No vote?
What it means on Cape Ann
Local connections
CPCS's Salem Public Defender Division covers two courts. Gloucester District Court serves Essex, Gloucester and Rockport. Salem District Court serves Manchester-by-the-Sea. The office is at 35 Congress Street in Salem, according to CPCS. The CPCS page also says court sessions resumed in Gloucester on February 18, 2025.
We did not find a count of CPCS employees who work on Cape Ann cases. We also did not find local costs. The measure is a statewide labor law, so it does not change a town budget directly.
Past town votes on a union question are in the data section above. We did not find verified public statements from Fifth Essex District candidates on Question 2, so we do not include any.