Listen: short summaryElection 2026 guideShort summary read by Kerry Jane. It is not the full article.Read the summary text
Question 3 is about primary elections. It would replace the separate party primaries for state offices with one primary on one ballot, and the top two candidates would advance to November, whatever their party. A Yes vote makes that change, starting in twenty twenty eight. A No vote keeps the party primaries. Supporters say more competition means more accountability. Opponents say top two systems in other states have favored wealthy, self funded candidates. As of October twenty sixth, the Yes side has reported about seven point seven million dollars, and the No side about one hundred ninety eight thousand. Read the full explainer, with every source and the data, at capeanncurrent.com slash elections. The Cape Ann Current takes no position.
Today, Massachusetts holds a Democratic primary and a Republican primary in September. Question 3 asks whether to replace them with one primary for state elections. All candidates would be on one ballot. The two who get the most votes would move on to the November ballot. Voters decide on November 3.
By Cape Ann Current Staff · How we workUpdated Oct. 26, 2026About 22 minute read
This explainer takes no position on Question 3. It lays out the law, the arguments on both sides, and the public numbers.
Part of our Election 2026 guide. Read the other eight questions and the local races.
Figures in this article were checked against the cited sources on Oct. 26, 2026. Campaign money and polls change often, so each shows an “as of” date. Previous: Question 2. Next: Question 4.
Illustration: Cape Ann Current. Colors are decoration only and do not stand for any party or choice.
The short version
What voters are deciding, in plain words.
The official question. The ballot asks: “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?” The title is “Law Proposed by Initiative Petition: State Primary Elections.” In plain words, the question asks if you approve the proposed law. Source: Secretary of the Commonwealth, 2026 Information for Voters.
A Yes vote. The Secretary’s booklet says a Yes vote “would eliminate separate party primaries for state elections.” There would be one primary, with all candidates on one ballot. Voters could pick any candidate. The top two would move on to the November election.
A No vote. The booklet says a No vote “would make no change to the laws governing primary elections.” Democrats and Republicans would keep their own primaries.
Which offices. State and federal offices that voters pick in the September state primary, from Governor to county sheriff. The presidential election and city and town elections would not change. See the list below.
When. If it passes, it takes effect January 1, 2028, according to Ballotpedia, CommonWealth Beacon and Boston.com. The first state primary under the new rules would come after that date.
Cost. The state budget office (the Executive Office for Administration and Finance) says the law “has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances.” In plain words, it found no noticeable cost. A majority of a legislative committee listed worries about how the change would be run and paid for.
Who is campaigning. The Coalition for Healthy Democracy leads the Yes campaign. Voter Rights MA leads the No campaign. The Democratic and Republican state parties both oppose the question. See the money and endorsements below.
Key point: Question 3 changes how people choose the candidates for the November ballot. It does not change who is allowed to vote.
What these words mean
Primary election. A first round of voting, held in September in Massachusetts, that picks who will be on the November ballot.
Unenrolled voter. A registered voter who has not joined a political party. Some states call this an independent voter. An unenrolled voter is not the same as an independent candidate.
Top-two or all-party primary. One primary with every candidate on the same ballot. The two people with the most votes move on, even if they belong to the same party.
Initiative petition. A way for citizens to propose a law by collecting signatures. The Legislature gets the first chance to act on it. If it does not, the proposal can go to the voters.
Incumbent. The person who now holds an office.
Polarization. How far apart the two parties are in how they vote.
What is on the ballot
A new state law, proposed by citizens. Here is how a state race works today and how it would work under Question 3.
Today (current law)
Each party holds its own primary. Democrats and Republicans have separate ballots.
Voters enrolled in a party vote in that party’s primary. Unenrolled voters may pick either party’s ballot, but not both (Boston.com).
Each party’s winner goes on the November ballot. Independent and third-party candidates who collect enough signatures can also be on it (CommonWealth Beacon).
Statewide candidates must win at least 15 percent of delegate votes at a party convention to reach the primary ballot (Boston.com).
A group is a political party in the state if its candidates win at least 3 percent in the general election (Ballotpedia).
Under Question 3
One primary for all candidates. Every registered voter, enrolled or unenrolled, gets the same ballot (WBUR).
The two candidates with the most votes advance, whatever their party. Two candidates from one party could meet in November, and a party could have no one on the November ballot (Boston.com).
Candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor run together as a team in the primary (Secretary of the Commonwealth).
The 15 percent convention rule for statewide candidates goes away (Boston.com).
A group gets party status if its statewide candidates win at least 3 percent of primary ballots (Secretary of the Commonwealth).
Key point: Today the primary picks one nominee per party. Under Question 3 the primary would pick the two finalists, no matter their party.
More about the text of the law
Topic
What the sources say
Type of measure
A law proposed by citizens (a statute), not a change to the state constitution. Ballotpedia calls it an “indirect initiated state statute,” which means the Legislature gets the first chance to act. Neither the House nor the Senate voted on it before May 6, 2026, so it went to the ballot.
Start date
January 1, 2028 (Ballotpedia, CommonWealth Beacon, WBUR, Boston.com).
Party labels
Each candidate’s party or political label appears next to the name. The words “Endorsed by” a party appear only if both the candidate and the party ask for them (Ballotpedia, summarizing the text). WBUR describes this as adding fusion voting to primaries. Fusion voting means one candidate can show support from more than one party.
Nomination papers
Any registered voter, whatever their party, may sign a candidate’s nomination papers (Ballotpedia). CommonWealth Beacon says the measure does not change the signature requirements to get on the ballot.
Ties and vacancies
If two candidates tie in the primary, the Secretary of the Commonwealth breaks the tie by lot (a random draw). An opening for a nominated office is first filled by the next highest vote getter in the primary. A governor and lieutenant governor team files a list of five registered voters who could fill an opening on the ticket (Ballotpedia and the Secretary’s summary).
Cost to government
Executive Office for Administration and Finance (the state budget office): no discernible material fiscal consequences. A majority of the Legislature’s Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions listed “administrative and fiscal implications” among its concerns (Secretary of the Commonwealth).
How it could change later
Because it is an ordinary law, the Legislature could change or repeal it later by passing a new law, which the Governor would review. Courts can also strike down any part that conflicts with the state or U.S. Constitution. We found no reported plan to do either.
Court review so far
On June 22, 2026, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the state’s highest court, unanimously rejected a challenge by two members of the Democratic State Committee, Martina Jackson and Ann Roosevelt. They sued as individuals and had asked the court to keep the question off the ballot. Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt wrote that the measure is a reasonable regulation of elections and does not unconstitutionally burden the right to vote or to seek office (CommonWealth Beacon; Ballotpedia). The court said the question could go on the ballot. It did not say the system is better or worse than the current one.
Key point: The law starts in 2028, it can be changed later like other laws, and the state’s highest court has already said it can be on the ballot.
Which offices it covers
Offices chosen in the September state primary, plus federal seats from Massachusetts. Not the president, and not your city or town.
Group
Offices (Ballotpedia list)
Covered?
Statewide
Governor and Lieutenant Governor (as a team), Attorney General, Secretary of the Commonwealth, State Treasurer, State Auditor
Yes
Congress
U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative
Yes
Legislature
State Senator, State Representative
Yes
Governor’s Council
Governor’s Councillor
Yes
County and district
District Attorney, Clerk of Courts, Register of Probate, Register of Deeds, County Commissioner, Sheriff, County Treasurer
Yes
President
The presidential primary and the presidential general election
No (Ballotpedia, WBUR)
Cities and towns
Mayor, city council, select board, school committee and other local offices
No (WBUR, GBH, CommonWealth Beacon)
Key point: If Question 3 passes, every state, federal and county office that now has a party primary would use the all-party primary. Local elections would stay as they are. Lists in other sources differ slightly, and the text of the law controls.
How we got here
From a 2020 ballot question on ranked choice voting to this 2026 question.
Campaign and signaturesLegislature and courtsVoting days
Voters reject 2020 Question 2, a ranked choice voting proposal. Statewide the vote was 1,549,919 Yes and 1,877,447 No (state election results site).
Danielle Allen, a Harvard professor, seeks the Democratic nomination for Governor and drops out, citing the party’s delegate process (WBUR).
The petition is filed with the Attorney General. The Coalition for Healthy Democracy sponsors it (Ballotpedia).
The petition is cleared for signature gathering (Ballotpedia).
About 98,000 signatures are turned in (Ballotpedia).
The state certifies 79,032 valid signatures. The measure goes to the Legislature as House 5003 (Ballotpedia).
Martina Jackson and Ann Roosevelt file a lawsuit to keep the measure off the ballot (Ballotpedia).
A majority of the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions recommends that the Legislature take no action (Secretary of the Commonwealth).
The Legislature’s deadline passes with no vote, and a second round of signature gathering opens (Ballotpedia). The ballot language says no vote was taken before this date.
Sponsors turn in about 20,000 more signatures (Ballotpedia).
The SJC unanimously rejects the lawsuit and clears the question for the ballot (CommonWealth Beacon).
The state certifies 14,377 valid second round signatures. The measure is placed on the November ballot. It is numbered Question 3 on July 21 (Ballotpedia).
The state primary is held under current rules. Statewide turnout is 22.7 percent of registered voters (Secretary of the Commonwealth).
CommonWealth Beacon hosts a debate on the question at Northern Essex Community College.
Election Day. Question 3 is one of nine questions on the ballot (Boston.com).
Effective date if voters say Yes.
Key point: The campaign collected enough signatures twice, the Legislature did not act, and the state’s highest court cleared the question in June.
What a Yes vote would bring, and what a No vote would bring
Concrete changes first. Then what is uncertain.
If Yes wins
One ballot. In the September primary, every qualified candidate for an office appears on one ballot. Voters may pick any of them, in any party.
Top two advance. The two people with the most votes go on to November. That can mean two members of the same party, or two people from different parties.
Unenrolled voters. They would no longer choose between a Democratic and a Republican ballot. They would get the same ballot as everyone else.
Party labels stay on the ballot. Candidates list a party or designation. An “Endorsed by” line shows only if the party and candidate both ask.
New party rules. Party status is tested in the primary at 3 percent. The 15 percent convention rule for statewide candidates ends.
Timing. It starts January 1, 2028. Presidential and local elections stay the same.
If No wins
Two primaries stay. The Democratic and Republican primaries continue, with separate ballots.
Party choice stays. Enrolled voters vote in their own party’s primary. Unenrolled voters choose one party’s ballot on primary day.
Each party picks a nominee. Each party’s winner goes to the November ballot.
Independent route stays. Independent and third-party candidates who collect enough signatures still go straight to the November ballot.
Party rules stay. The 15 percent convention rule for statewide candidates and the 3 percent general election test for party status continue.
Timing. Nothing changes in 2028. Nothing we found says whether anyone would bring a similar proposal back.
Key point: The biggest practical change is who appears on the November ballot. Under Yes it is the two top finishers from one primary. Under No it is one nominee from each party that holds a primary, plus any independents who qualify.
What is uncertain
Uncertain
How often two same party finalists would meet
According to CommonWealth Beacon, Democrats now hold every statewide office, every U.S. House seat and more than three quarters of legislative seats. Tufts analysts wrote that, in a state like that, the top two finishers “would thus feature two candidates from the same political party” in many races. Nobody can say how often this would happen here. In California, about one in six legislative or congressional November races has had two finalists from one party since top-two began, according to the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC).
Uncertain
Turnout, money and moderation
A Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis review, led by Evan Horowitz and described by WBUR, says the evidence is limited. It suggests top-two primaries may modestly reduce polarization, slightly raise primary turnout and bring more money into races. It also suggests minor party candidates may be less likely to run. The Legislature’s committee majority said it found no support for claims of more participation or more third party and independent officeholders.
Uncertain
Third party and independent candidates
The official argument against says third party and independent candidates “would be shut out of the general election.” The measure says only the two top finishers advance. CommonWealth Beacon notes it leaves signature rules for getting on the ballot unchanged. The SJC noted that voters can still write in names in the primary. Who would gain or lose depends on how voters and candidates act.
Uncertain
Party enrollment after 2028
A summary of the text says it removes some rules about party enrollment and crossing over in primaries. None of the sources we opened explains whether people could still enroll in a party after 2028, or what that would mean. The text of the law controls.
The arguments
First the official statements printed in the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s 2026 Information for Voters booklet. Then who is campaigning, the money, and the endorsements. Neither the state nor the Current certifies these claims.
Official argument for
“Massachusetts elected officials should work for us, not insiders.” It says “many elections are over before most of us ever cast a ballot” and “candidates can be blocked at party conventions.”
It says “two-thirds of the legislature is running unopposed.”
“All candidates appear on your primary ballot, and the top two advance to November where they need a majority of votes to win.”
“More competition means more accountability.” It ends: “Vote Yes on Question 3 for accountability and competition.”
Written by Danielle Allen, Coalition for Healthy Democracy.
Official argument against
“Similar top-two systems in California and Washington have favored wealthy, self-funded candidates” and corporate PACs, “while sidelining grassroots candidates and historically marginalized and underrepresented groups.”
It says “third-party and independent candidates would be shut out of the general election.”
It says the plan would allow “only two candidates to advance to November,” even from one 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.”
Written by Vanessa A. Snow, Voter Rights MA.
Key point: Supporters say primaries leave too many races decided early and without much competition. Opponents say the new system would reduce choices in November and favor money and name recognition.
The best case each side makes in public
Supporters say
Primary turnout. Jerren Chang, president of Partners in Democracy, pointed to a Boston state Senate primary where the winner took about 11,000 votes in a district of 180,000 people (WBUR).
Unenrolled voters. Backers point out that unenrolled voters make up about 65 percent of voters but must pick one party’s ballot in a primary (Ballotpedia). Jesse Littlewood, the campaign manager, said: “We are quite literally the last in the nation when it comes to competition in our elections” (WBUR).
Former governors. Former Governor Charlie Baker said: “All-party primaries will give voters more choice.” Former Governor Deval Patrick said they “can enable more good people to compete” (Boston.com).
Timing of the key vote. Tufts analysts described the argument this way: the two most popular candidates would meet in November “when turnout and interest are peaking,” not in a primary “when turnout is lower and less representative.”
Opponents say
Campaign money. State Sen. Lydia Edwards said longer campaigns would favor candidates with more money: “We don’t need more money in politics” (GBH).
The two state parties. Steve Kerrigan, chair of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, called it “a solution in search of a problem.” Amy Carnevale, chair of the Massachusetts Republican Party, said it “would undermine core democratic principles” (Boston.com).
Effect on voter groups. Jordan Berg Powers, who chairs the No on 3 campaign, argued the measure would dilute Black voters’ political power: “The way that you sort of harm Black voters is you diffuse us” (WBUR).
Role of parties. Sen. Edward Markey said he wants to keep the current system “so that each party can pick the best candidate” (Boston.com). Josh Wolfsun of the Working Families Party called it a “worse system dressed up as a solution” (WBUR).
What the Legislature’s committee said
On May 4, 2026, a majority of the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions (eight members: three senators and five representatives) recommended that the Legislature take no action. The report is printed in the voter booklet. It raised these concerns. One was costs and administration for state and local government. Another was vote splitting and strategic voting (when voters pick based on how they think others will vote). A third was an unclear way for parties to endorse candidates below statewide office. It also cited what it called a lack of evidence from California that turnout and third party representation would rise. The report said the Attorney General’s approval of the petition did not review whether the law is constitutional. The SJC later ruled on that question, as described above. We did not find a written reply from the sponsors in the sources we opened. Their arguments are in the sections above.
Who is campaigning, and the money
Campaign for Yes
Committee: Coalition for Healthy Democracy 2026. Campaign manager Jesse Littlewood. Founded and led by Harvard professor Danielle Allen. Partners in Democracy helps fund it (WBUR, CommonWealth Beacon).
Raised: $7,706,458. Spent: $6,925,723. Cash on hand: $580,192. In kind: $89,472, shown separately (OCPF, as of Oct. 26, 2026). Ballotpedia, compiling OCPF data as of Oct. 20, 2026, showed $7,164,297.62 raised and $6,859,149.75 spent. OCPF also lists this committee as a Yes committee under Question 1. It files one set of reports, so the money is counted once.
Largest donors: David Randolph Peeler, $1,050,000. Andrew Balson, $750,000. Joshua Bekenstein, $500,000. Mark Nunnelly, $375,000. Brian Conway and Dwight Poler, $300,000 each.
Campaign for No
Committee: Voter Rights MA, plus a second committee Ballotpedia lists as DSARR. The No on 3 campaign is chaired by Jordan Berg Powers (WBUR).
Raised: $197,715 (Voter Rights MA). Spent: $50,060. Cash on hand: $116,656. In kind: $29,107, shown separately (OCPF, as of Oct. 26, 2026). Ballotpedia, as of Oct. 20, 2026, showed $195,159.27 raised and $78,469.27 spent for Voter Rights MA and the second committee together.
Largest donors: 1199 SEIU MA PAC, $100,000. Massachusetts Democratic State Committee, $63,346.40. Progressive Massachusetts, $14,589 in kind.
Main figures come from the Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF), the state campaign finance agency, as of Oct. 26, 2026. They add each committee’s 2025 and 2026 reports. The next report deadline is November 5, 2026. Other outlets give different amounts because they count different things (money raised, spent or on hand) and use different dates. GBH, for example, reported about $4 million spent by the Yes side as of Oct. 20. That news figure was earlier than the OCPF total, which shows $6,925,723 spent. Boston.com reported cash on hand as of Oct. 7. We use OCPF and one date so the two sides can be compared.
Who has taken a side
Endorsing Yes (Ballotpedia)
U.S. Reps. Jake Auchincloss and Seth Moulton
State Sens. John Cronin and John Velis
State Auditor Diana DiZoglio
Former Govs. Charlie Baker and Deval Patrick; former Lt. Govs. Kerry Healey and Tim Murray
Mayors of Malden, Medford, New Bedford and Westfield
NAACP New England Area Conference, Open Primaries, Massachusetts Forward Party
Editorial boards of the Boston Globe and the Lowell Sun
Endorsing No (Ballotpedia)
U.S. Sen. Edward Markey and U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu (a nonpartisan office)
Massachusetts Democratic Party and Massachusetts Republican Party
Massachusetts Working Families Party and Young Democrats of Massachusetts
1199 SEIU, 32BJ SEIU, Local 509 SEIU, Massachusetts AFT and SEIU Massachusetts State Council; CommonWealth Beacon also lists the Massachusetts AFL-CIO
Act on Mass, Progressive Massachusetts, Americans for Tax Reform
Editorial board of the Berkshire Eagle
Key point: As of October 26, OCPF shows about 7.7 million dollars raised by the Yes campaign and about 198 thousand dollars raised by the No campaign. Each side also lists officials, groups and editorial boards that support its position.
Claims worth checking
Claim
Who says it
What we found
Unenrolled voters are about two thirds of voters
Yes campaign; Democratic Party chair Kerrigan said “nearly two thirds”
Both sides agree. State records show 64.8 percent unenrolled on Feb. 1, 2025 (3,254,435 of 5,025,826).
“Two thirds of the legislature is running unopposed”
Official argument for
WBUR and CommonWealth Beacon say about 60 percent, or three in five, of House and Senate races have one candidate on the November ballot. We could not confirm either number independently, and they may count differently.
Top-two systems favor wealthy and self funded candidates
Official argument against
Not confirmed. We found no independent dollar comparison. Tufts says top-two systems may bring more money into races.
In California, primary turnout rose but general election turnout fell
Legislative committee majority
PPIC reported in June 2026 that non presidential primary turnout rose slightly, starting with the second election under top-two. The PPIC post we read does not report general election turnout.
Top-two lowers polarization
Some supporters
Disputed. Ballotpedia cites one 2020 study that found more moderate legislators. A 2010 PPIC report expected only a “noticeable but modest” effect in California.
Key point: We could not confirm several claims from either side with the sources we opened. The table says which ones and why.
The numbers
Turnout, voter registration, polls and money. Every figure shows its source, date and unit.
Turnout in Massachusetts state primaries, 1996 to 2026
1996
11.84%
1998
26.3%
2000
9.38%
2002
26.13%
2004
11.49%
2006
25.94%
2008
14.01%
2010
17.62%
2012
12.42%
2014
16.81%
2016
8.84%
2018
21.85%
2020
36.58%
2022
21.75%
2024
16.7%
2026
22.7%
Key point: In the last 16 state primaries, turnout ranged from 8.84 percent of registered voters in 2016 to 36.58 percent in 2020. The September 1, 2026 primary drew 22.7 percent, or 1,174,549 ballots from 5,184,354 registered voters.
Unit: percent of registered voters. Bars start at zero; the full bar is 40 percent. Source: Secretary of the Commonwealth, Voter Turnout Statistics (state primaries). The Boston Globe reported 16.6 percent for 2024; the state table shows 16.7 percent. Accessed Oct. 26, 2026.
Primary turnout and general election turnout, same years
2010 primary
17.62%
2010 general
55.36%
2014 primary
16.81%
2014 general
50.84%
2018 primary
21.85%
2018 general
60.17%
2022 primary
21.75%
2022 general
51.42%
2026 primary
22.7%
2026 general
Not held yet (Nov. 3)
Key point: In each governor year shown, general election turnout was more than double primary turnout. In 2022 it was 51.42 percent in the general election and 21.75 percent in the primary.
Unit: percent of registered voters. Bars start at zero; the full bar is 80 percent. Source: Secretary of the Commonwealth, Voter Turnout Statistics (state elections and state primaries). Accessed Oct. 26, 2026.
Massachusetts voters by party enrollment
February 1, 2025 5,025,826 registered voters
25.8%8.4%64.8% unenrolled
October 26, 2024 5,142,343 registered voters
26.3%8.5%64.2% unenrolled
Enrolled DemocratsEnrolled RepublicansUnenrolledOther political designations
Key point: About 65 out of every 100 registered voters in Massachusetts are not enrolled in any party. That is 3,254,435 people as of February 1, 2025.
Unit: percent of registered voters. Counts: 1,298,603 Democrats, 423,387 Republicans, 3,254,435 unenrolled and 49,401 in other designations (Feb. 1, 2025). Source: Secretary of the Commonwealth, enrollment statistics. A 2026 enrollment table was not posted when we checked. Accessed Oct. 26, 2026.
Key point: Of the 1,174,549 ballots in the 2026 state primary, 913,768 were Democratic and 260,781 were Republican. That is 77.8 percent and 22.2 percent. The vote counts do not say how many voters were unenrolled.
Unit: ballots cast, using the totals for the U.S. Senate primaries. Source: Secretary of the Commonwealth, Massachusetts election statistics site (electionstats.state.ma.us), 2026 U.S. Senate Democratic and Republican primaries. Results as posted Oct. 26, 2026.
Polls on Question 3
Boston Globe and Suffolk, Oct. 14 to 18, 500 registered voters
46.8% Yes41.1% No10.4%
UMass Amherst and WCVB, Oct. 5 to 12, 800 registered voters
49% Yes39% No12%
UNH Survey Center, Sept. 17 to 21, 529 likely voters
41% Yes39% No19%
CommonWealth Beacon and MassINC, Sept. 14 to 22, 800 likely voters
43% Yes36% No20%
UMass Amherst and WCVB, Aug. 5 to 12, 800 registered voters
51% Yes32% No17%
YesNoUndecided
Key point: In the five most recent polls Ballotpedia lists, Yes led No by between 2 and 19 points, and 10 to 20 percent of people were undecided. The earliest polls show larger shares of undecided voters.
Pollster
Dates in 2026
Sample
Yes
No
Undecided
Boston Globe and Suffolk
Oct. 14 to 18
500 registered voters
46.8%
41.1%
10.4%
UMass Amherst and WCVB
Oct. 5 to 12
800 registered voters
49%
39%
12%
CommonWealth Beacon and MassINC
Sept. 14 to 22
800 likely voters
43%
36%
20%
UNH Survey Center
Sept. 17 to 21
529 likely voters
41%
39%
19%
UMass Amherst and WCVB
Aug. 5 to 12
800 registered voters
51%
32%
17%
Emerson College
May 3 to 4
1,000 likely voters
50.3%
29.1%
20.7%
UNH Survey Center
Apr. 16 to 20
592 likely voters
44%
25%
32%
UNH Survey Center
Feb. 12 to 16
665 residents
41%
28%
31%
Key point: Polls ask different groups and word the question differently, so they are not exact matches. Shares may not add to 100 because of rounding. Margins of error ranged from 3.0 to 4.4 points (Ballotpedia). A poll is a snapshot, not a forecast.
Unit: percent of respondents. Source: Ballotpedia, Massachusetts Question 3 (2026), poll table, accessed Oct. 26, 2026. CommonWealth Beacon, via Boston.com, reported the same 43 / 36 / 20 result for its poll. WBUR reported the Suffolk and Boston Globe poll (500 registered voters, margin 4.4 points) as 46, 41 and 10 percent, and the UMass Amherst and WCVB October poll (800 respondents, margin 4.2 points) as 49 and 39 percent Yes and No.
Campaign money reported to OCPF, as of October 26, 2026
Campaign for Yes (Coalition for Healthy Democracy): raised $7,706,458, spent $6,925,723
Campaign for No (Voter Rights MA): raised $197,715, spent $50,060
Key point: The Yes campaign has raised about 7.7 million dollars and the No campaign about 198 thousand dollars, as of October 26, 2026. In kind gifts are extra: $89,472 for Yes and $29,107 for No. The next report is due November 5.
Unit: dollars of receipts, not counting in kind gifts. Bars start at zero, same scale. Source: OCPF, ballot question committee reports for 2026, 2025 and 2026 reports summed, as of Oct. 26, 2026. OCPF lists Coalition for Healthy Democracy under both Question 1 and Question 3; it is counted once here. Second number: Ballotpedia, compiled from OCPF, as of Oct. 20, 2026, showed $7,164,297.62 raised for Yes and $195,159.27 for No. Accessed Oct. 26, 2026.
How other states handle it
Only two states use a top-two primary for statewide and congressional races. Other states try different ideas. Here are the documented facts.
Place
System
How it works
Documented facts
Massachusetts now
Party primaries
Enrolled voters use their party’s ballot; unenrolled voters pick one party’s ballot. Each party’s winner goes to November.
Source: Boston.com.
Massachusetts under Question 3
All-party, top-two
All candidates on one primary ballot. The top two advance.
Starts Jan. 1, 2028. State, federal and county offices only.
Washington
Top-two
Every voter gets the same ballot. Candidates list the party they prefer. The top two advance, whatever their party.
Voters approved Initiative 872 in 2004 with 59.85 percent. It was first used in the 2008 cycle. The U.S. Supreme Court, 7 to 2, on March 18, 2008, held that the law was not unconstitutional as written. It left later disputes about how the law is used to be judged case by case.
California
Top-two
Same idea as Washington, for congressional and state offices.
Voters approved Proposition 14 on June 8, 2010 with 53.73 percent. PPIC: since top-two began, about one in six legislative or congressional general elections has had two finalists from one party.
Alaska
Top-four primary and ranked choice general election
The four best finishers in a nonpartisan primary advance. Voters then rank those candidates in November.
2020 Ballot Measure 2 passed 50.55 to 49.45. A 2024 repeal failed by 50.1 to 49.9. A new repeal initiative qualified with 42,837 verified signatures and was expected on the 2026 ballot, as of January 2026 (Ballotpedia).
Louisiana (former system)
All-party primary on Election Day, then runoff
For decades, most offices used one ballot held with the November election. A candidate with more than 50 percent won. If no one did, the top two met in a runoff.
A party primary option was used in 2008 and dropped after the 2010 cycle. In 2026 Louisiana moved to semi-closed party primaries for Congress, the state Supreme Court, the school board and the Public Service Commission. U.S. House primaries were later moved back to an all-party system (Louisiana Illuminator; Ballotpedia; 270toWin).
Maine
Ranked choice voting
Voters rank candidates in order. It is used in primaries for state and federal offices and in general elections for U.S. Senate and House.
Voters adopted it Nov. 8, 2016. It was first used June 12, 2018 (Maine Legislature law library). It is not a top-two system.
Nebraska
Top-two for the Legislature
State legislative races are nonpartisan, and the top two advance.
Ballotpedia lists it as a top-two use. Ballotpedia says congressional primaries there are partisan.
Key point: Washington and California use top-two for statewide and congressional races. Alaska uses top-four. Louisiana used a different all-party model that ran together with the general election. Maine uses ranked choice voting, which is a separate idea.
What studies and reports say about California
Public Policy Institute of California, June 11, 2026
Turnout and same party finalists
PPIC reported that turnout in California’s June 2026 primary was 34 percent of the people eligible to vote, higher than in any midterm primary since 1982. Turnout in presidential year primaries stayed flat under top-two, and non presidential primaries rose slightly, starting with the second election. About one in six legislative or congressional races has had two finalists from the same party, far more often among Democrats. PPIC also reported that 59 percent of Californians in May called Proposition 14 mostly a good thing, and that paperwork was submitted for an initiative to “Undo the Top Two.”
PPIC, February 10, 2010
What was expected before it began
PPIC researcher Eric McGhee studied California’s earlier blanket primary and expected a “noticeable but modest” effect from top-two. The report found that moderate candidates were somewhat more likely to win Assembly seats under the older system, with no similar effect in the state Senate. It said funding differences would likely still matter.
Legislature’s committee majority, May 4, 2026
The view of the committee
The committee majority wrote that in California primary turnout rose but general election turnout fell, and that the California and Washington legislatures had no third party or independent members. It also said Alaska’s top-four system with ranked choice voting is different and does not support the proposal.
Ballotpedia, studies it cites
Mixed findings
Ballotpedia cites a 2020 study by Christian Grose that found legislators elected under top-two primaries were more moderate than those from closed primaries. It also cites a 2018 study by Steven Sparks that argued campaign spending is more effective for challengers in same party contests. Ballotpedia presents these as arguments and does not report outside turnout or outcome statistics.
How voters decided similar measures
State
Year
Measure
Result
Yes share
South Dakota
2024
Amendment H
Defeated
34%
Florida
2020
Amendment 3
Defeated
57%
Oregon
2014
Measure 90
Defeated
32%
Arizona
2012
Proposition 121
Defeated
33%
California
2010
Proposition 14
Approved
54%
Oregon
2008
Measure 65
Defeated
34%
California
2004
Proposition 62
Defeated
46%
Washington
2004
Initiative 872
Approved
60%
Key point: Of the eight top-two measures listed, two were approved (Washington in 2004 and California in 2010) and six were defeated. Florida’s 57 percent was a defeat. Nevada voters also rejected a combined open primary and ranked choice measure in 2024, according to the Nevada Independent.
These examples are not the same as Question 3. Details such as party labels, ballot access and write in rules differ from state to state, and each state also differs in how much each party dominates.
Where people agree, and what nobody can answer yet
There is more overlap than the campaign slogans suggest.
Most voters are unenrolled
The Yes side says about 65 percent of voters are unenrolled. The Democratic Party chair, who opposes the question, said nearly two thirds. State records show 64.8 percent in February 2025.
Primaries bring fewer voters than November
Both CommonWealth Beacon and the Tufts analysis say primary turnout is lower than general election turnout. State figures agree: 21.75 percent in the 2022 primary against 51.42 percent in the general election.
Voters should have real choices
Both official statements use this idea. The Yes statement says “fresh voices running for office.” The No statement says “Massachusetts voters deserve real choices.” They disagree on which system delivers it.
Money in politics is a worry
Both sides raise it. The Yes side says the current system protects insiders. The No side says a top-two system favors people with more money. Tufts says top-two systems may bring more money into races.
The question is a legal ballot question
The SJC ruled unanimously that it can go to voters, finding it a reasonable regulation of elections. The two sides disagree about whether it is good policy, not about whether voters may decide.
Little hard evidence exists for Massachusetts
Both the Tufts analysts and the Legislature’s committee majority describe the evidence from other states as limited or mixed. Each side reads it differently.
Open questions nobody can answer yet
How many November races would have two candidates from the same party?
Would more people run against incumbents, or fewer?
Would turnout in September go up, and would November turnout change?
Would independent and third party candidates still reach the November ballot, and how would party status work under the 3 percent test?
How would party endorsements work below the statewide level, a question the committee majority raised?
What would the change cost cities and towns that run the elections? The state says no discernible material cost. The committee majority said there are administrative implications.
Would the Legislature leave the new law as written?
What it means on Cape Ann
Gloucester, Rockport, Essex and Manchester-by-the-Sea: who is registered, who voted in September, and how these towns voted on a related question in 2020.
The local ballot
The four towns are all in the Fifth Essex House district, according to the state results data. They are also in the First Essex and Middlesex State Senate district. Both seats, plus the U.S. House seat, the Governor’s Council seat and the county offices, would fall under Question 3. Mayor, council, select board, school committee and other local offices would not.
We could not verify any Cape Ann candidate’s stated position on Question 3 from public sources, so we list none. Candidate answers on the other ballot questions are on the Election 2026 guide.
Key point: In all four Cape Ann towns, between 65 and 69 out of every 100 registered voters are unenrolled. Gloucester is at 68.3 percent, Rockport 67.0, Essex 68.6 and Manchester-by-the-Sea 65.5. The state figure is 64.8 percent.
Town
Registered
Democrats
Republicans
Unenrolled
Other
Unenrolled, Feb. 2025
Unenrolled, Oct. 2024
Gloucester
23,071
5,204
1,859
15,755
253
68.3%
68.1%
Rockport
6,247
1,575
442
4,185
45
67.0%
66.7%
Essex
2,972
569
341
2,039
23
68.6%
68.2%
Manchester-by-the-Sea
4,353
960
513
2,853
27
65.5%
64.9%
Unit: registered voters, and percent unenrolled. Dates: Feb. 1, 2025 (latest posted when we checked) and Oct. 26, 2024. Source: Secretary of the Commonwealth, enrollment breakdown tables. Registration has changed since Feb. 2025, so current numbers are likely different. Accessed Oct. 26, 2026.
Ballots cast in the September 1, 2026 state primary
Town
Democratic ballots
Republican ballots
Total ballots
Enrolled Democrats, Feb. 2025
Enrolled Republicans, Feb. 2025
Gloucester
5,860
1,739
7,599
5,204
1,859
Rockport
2,314
471
2,785
1,575
442
Essex
705
291
996
569
341
Manchester-by-the-Sea
1,223
371
1,594
960
513
Four towns
10,102
2,872
12,974
8,308
3,155
Key point: The four towns cast 12,974 primary ballots, 10,102 Democratic and 2,872 Republican. In each town more Democratic ballots were cast than there were enrolled Democrats in February 2025. That means some voters who were not enrolled Democrats, who may include unenrolled voters, took Democratic ballots. The data do not say how many.
Gloucester
about 32.9%
Rockport
about 44.6%
Essex
about 33.5%
Manchester-by-the-Sea
about 36.6%
All Massachusetts
22.7%
Key point: Using February 2025 registration as a rough base, about one in three registered voters in Gloucester and Essex, about 37 percent in Manchester-by-the-Sea and about 45 percent in Rockport cast a primary ballot. The statewide rate was 22.7 percent. These town rates are our estimates and are approximate, because registration was not posted for September 2026.
Unit: ballots cast (Total Votes Cast, including blanks) in the Democratic and Republican primaries for Governor. Estimated share equals total ballots divided by registered voters on Feb. 1, 2025 (Secretary of the Commonwealth). Bars start at zero; the full bar is 45 percent. Source: Secretary of the Commonwealth, electionstats.state.ma.us, 2026 Governor Democratic and Republican primaries, as posted Oct. 26, 2026.
Who was on the Cape Ann primary ballot, and how many races were contested
Race (Sept. 1, 2026)
Names on the ballot
Votes, four towns together
Blank ballots
U.S. Senate, Democratic
Edward Markey, Seth Moulton
Markey 5,395; Moulton 4,550
137 of 10,102
U.S. Senate, Republican
John Deaton
Deaton 2,350
512 of 2,872
Governor, Democratic
Maura Healey
Healey 8,800
1,189 of 10,102
Governor, Republican
Michael Minogue, Brian Shortsleeve
Minogue 2,503; Shortsleeve 324
43 of 2,872
State Representative, Fifth Essex, Democratic
Andrew Tarr, Sarah Wilkinson
Tarr 5,451; Wilkinson 3,950
687 of 10,102
State Representative, Fifth Essex, Republican
Christina Delisio
Delisio 2,296
556 of 2,872
State Senate, First Essex and Middlesex, Democratic
No name printed
Write ins: 1,207
8,895 of 10,102
State Senate, First Essex and Middlesex, Republican
Bruce Tarr
Tarr 2,337
504 of 2,872
Key point: Of eight party primary contests on the Cape Ann ballot, three had two names and five had one name or none. In the three races with two names, between 1.4 and 6.8 percent of ballots were blank. In the four races with one name, between 11.8 and 19.4 percent were blank. In the State Senate Democratic race, with no name printed, 8,895 of 10,102 ballots were blank. The data do not say why voters left ballots blank.
Under Question 3, the three people who ran for the Fifth Essex seat in September (two Democrats and one Republican) would have been on one ballot. We cannot say how the voters would have split. This is an illustration, not a prediction.
Unit: votes and blank ballots in the four towns combined. Source: Secretary of the Commonwealth, electionstats.state.ma.us, 2026 primary results for each office as posted Oct. 26, 2026 (election IDs 172905, 172906, 172893, 172894, 173245, 173246, 173161, 173162). Write ins are the “All Others” column; the names were not checked.
How the towns voted on ranked choice voting in 2020
Gloucester: 7,617 Yes, 9,735 No
43.9% Yes56.1% No
Rockport: 2,233 Yes, 2,822 No
44.2% Yes55.8% No
Essex: 1,171 Yes, 1,257 No
48.2% Yes51.8% No
Manchester-by-the-Sea: 1,724 Yes, 1,947 No
47.0% Yes53.0% No
All Massachusetts: 1,549,919 Yes, 1,877,447 No
45.2% Yes54.8% No
Key point: In 2020, a majority in each Cape Ann town voted No on ranked choice voting, as did a majority statewide. Yes ranged from 43.9 percent in Gloucester to 48.2 percent in Essex.
Unit: percent of Yes and No votes, blank ballots left out. Question 2 in 2020 was a different idea from Question 3. It would have used ranked choice voting, not a top-two primary. Source: Secretary of the Commonwealth, electionstats.state.ma.us, 2020 Question 2 (ballot question 7344), town results. Accessed Oct. 26, 2026.
What supporters say it could mean here
The roughly two thirds of Cape Ann voters who are unenrolled would get one ballot, not a choice between two party ballots.
Races where one party has no strong challenger could draw more candidates, and a November choice between two real contenders, says the Yes campaign.
What opponents say it could mean here
Local third party and independent candidates would need to finish in the top two in the primary to reach November, says the official argument against.
Longer, costlier campaigns in a district that spans four towns would favor candidates with more money, say opponents such as Sen. Lydia Edwards.
Neither list is a prediction. We found no study of how the change would work in a Cape Ann race.
Corrections: email [email protected] or [email protected]. The Cape Ann Current publishes public records and government data for Gloucester, Rockport, Essex and Manchester-by-the-Sea.
