Election Day is this Tuesday, November 3, and many of my constituents and supporters have reached out to ask about the nine questions on the Massachusetts ballot this year. Here's how I'm voting:

For more information on the ballot questions, I invite you to read:

• The official voter guide and summaries for all nine ballot questions, as prepared by the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office.
• The Progressive Guide to the ballot questions, as prepared by our friends at Progressive Massachusetts.
• The Nonpartisan Tufts Research Guide to the ballot questions, as prepared by the Center for State Policy Analysis.

Here's a brief rundown of each of the questions and why I'm voting this way:

QUESTION 1 — PUBLIC RECORDS LAW

As a longtime champion of transparency, I'm voting Yes to expand the public records law to cover the governor and the legislature. Currently, the public records law applies to state agencies, cities, and towns, with various exceptions, but not the governor or the legislature. This will be an important step forward for open government.

QUESTION 2 — ALLOW PUBLIC DEFENDERS TO UNIONIZE

In my time in the legislature, I have been a sponsor of legislation to allow public defenders to unionize. I am a Yes on Question 2 because I support the rights of workers and organized labor everywhere — and I think it's clear that attorneys who choose to work as public defenders make real financial sacrifices to serve the interests of justice. The least we can do is allow them to form a union like other public sector workers.

QUESTION 3 — ELIMINATE PARTY PRIMARIES

I am a No on this question to eliminate party primaries. This question is largely funded by private equity multimillionaires and billionaires — and as someone who defeated a longtime incumbent in a Democratic Party primary in 2016 — I think I understand why.

Party primaries tend to bring out the most informed, most engaged voters — and in Cambridge and Somerville, the primaries tend to favor progressive candidates. The private equity bros are frustrated that their preferred candidates are struggling to make it through the party primaries — and so they are heavily funding this question. They don't want to see a future where an Ayanna Pressley or a Michelle Wu is the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. So they want to make sure more moderate candidates can continue to uphold the status quo.

Beyond our neck of the woods, this question would have other negative consequences, such as the nightmare scenario where a field of say 2 Republicans and 6 Democrats could result in no Democrats on a general election ballot. By all accounts, if this question passes, the role of money in politics will become much more prominent. I like the current system that allows a grassroots candidate with committed volunteers to successfully challenge the political establishment and win. With populism on the rise, the billionaires see the writing on the wall and are pushing this question to set our progressive movement backward.

To be sure, many of the supporters of this question have good intentions — and no electoral system can deliver the ideal outcome for everyone in every situation. But on the whole, I think this is a bad idea, and our reform efforts would be better focused on ending Citizens United, bringing back Clean Elections and public financing options, along with ranked-choice voting.

QUESTION 4 — ELECTION DAY VOTER REGISTRATION

I am a Yes on this question, as I have always supported same-day voter registration, including in a very contentious roll call vote on the House floor in 2022, when many Democrats, myself included, broke with the Speaker in an effort to pass same-day voter registration. New Hampshire has been doing Election Day registration for decades, and we can do it too!

QUESTION 5 — LIMIT STATE TAX REVENUES

I am a No on 5 because this question would be a disaster for our state budget. It would make automatic tax refunds more frequent and less predictable under M.G.L. Ch. 62F.

In 2022, the last time tax refunds were triggered under 62F, I led the fight to make those refunds more equitable. Part of the legislation I filed that year was ultimately passed into law in 2023. Now, some of the state's wealthiest individuals are pushing this ballot question to ensure they get even bigger tax refunds more often. What's worse, the refunds wouldn't be very predictable — if this question passes, we can expect deep cuts to government programs and services in a haphazard fashion. It would truly be a nightmare.

QUESTION 6 — CREATE A CONSERVATION FUND

I am a Yes on 6 to direct a small portion of sales tax receipts to a special account for investments in conservation and recreation, such as parks, playgrounds, and nature. The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) is terribly underfunded, and these funds could help. The money would come from sales taxes on sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golfing.

Critics of this question have pointed out that it doesn't actually raise any new revenue — it just directs the legislature to set aside more of our current revenues for parks and wildlife. It's a valid point, and yet, I don't see this aspect of the question as a limitation because I am also actively pushing to raise new progressive revenue with reasonable taxes on the very wealthy and large corporations. So my ideal scenario would be for voters to pass this question, and then for us in the legislature to raise additional revenue to replace the funds that will be diverted from the general fund and earmarked for conservation and recreation.

QUESTION 7 — REDUCE LOT SIZE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES

This question would allow single-family homes to be built on any lot where there is at least 5,000 square feet of space, at least a 50-foot border with a street, and access to public sewer and water. Cities and towns would still be able to set reasonable rules for setbacks, height, and the bulk of buildings. I am a Yes on this question because it will facilitate the development of additional housing statewide, especially in those suburban communities that have historically been hostile to new housing construction. Here in Cambridge and Somerville, I don't expect this question to have much of an impact, since our communities already allow more housing than this question would require. The real impact will be in those communities that require a large lot size to build a home.

QUESTION 8 — REPEAL RECREATIONAL CANNABIS LAW

I am a strong No on this question to end recreational pot sales in Massachusetts. Granted, there is a lot about our cannabis laws and regulations that hasn't worked especially well. There's plenty of room for improvement in many aspects of cannabis policy. But the idea of abolishing the legal market for cannabis is truly crazy. All of the businesses and entrepreneurs would lose their investments, and the underground market would once again take over. I support looking for sensible ways to reform and improve our cannabis laws, not a total repeal.

QUESTION 9 — UPHOLD GUN CONTROL LAWS

I am a Yes on this question to uphold the nation-leading gun safety law we passed in the legislature in 2024. Like the previous question, this question is truly crazy. With so much gun violence in our community and across the nation, it makes no sense to undo our strong gun laws.

There you have it — those are my takes on all nine ballot questions — now it's up to you to decide. If you haven't done so already, please vote by 8 pm on Tuesday! And as always, don't hesitate to reach out with any questions, comments, or concerns.

Yours in service,

Mike