Gun law repeal, recreational cannabis rollback both headed to defeat
By ALISON KUZNITZ
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE
BOSTON, Nov. 4, 2026…..Amid the cascade of ballot questions to dramatically reshape state government operations and election administration, voters appeared to turn down a closely watched measure to move Massachusetts toward all-party primaries.
About 60% of the votes counted by midnight rejected Question 3, a measure resisted by top Beacon Hill Democrats that would have toppled the existing dynamic for Democrats and Republicans to separately steer their candidates through primaries and onto the general election ballot. The Associated Press had not called the race by midnight. A recent University of Massachusetts Lowell poll had said the question was “too close to call.”
Jordan Berg Powers, chair of Voter Rights MA that opposed Question 3, congratulated voters on “preserving our democracy and leaving the power in the hands of the people.” He also touted the campaign’s “grassroot power,” in a rebuke of the Yes on 3 campaign that critics said was funded through private equity investments.
“We did not have millions of dollars in private equity money,” Powers said in a statement at 11 p.m. Tuesday. “But what we had mattered: community activists, labor unions, grassroots organizations, and elected officials united in a broad ideological coalition to say ‘no’ to billionaires buying our democracy. We could not have done this without all of the activists and organizers who work every day to make this state better coming together with voters to reject jungle primaries in Massachusetts.”
Former Republican Gov. Charlie Baker and former Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick endorsed Question 3 last month. Baker argued the measure would “give voters more choice” and that “elected officials will have to reach across the aisle to voters from other parties if they want to be successful.” Danielle Allen, chair of Coalition for a Healthy Democracy that was behind Question 3, had argued the measure would eliminate “convention gatekeeping.”
The coalition on Tuesday night acknowledged “this was a race against the status quo” from the start.
“And when you throw grit into the gears of a political machine, the machine fights back,” the coalition said. “The people who benefit most from the way things are fought hard for this result. In the last few weeks, voters heard a lot from people with the most to protect under the current system: the major political parties and insiders who want to decide what choices voters get on their ballots. That’s what defending the status quo looks like.”
The less controversial election-related matter on the ballot allowing for Election Day registration, Question 4, was on the path to winning. Associated Press results showed “yes” leading with about 58% support just after midnight.
A question to limit state tax collection was on the path to failing, with 53% of voters casting their ballot against it, based on almost half of votes tallied.
The campaign behind Question 6, which supporters claim would generate up to $100 million for water and land conservation, celebrated its apparent victory around 10:30 p.m.
Sales tax revenues collected on sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses would be diverted into a new fund under Question 6. The law would take effect on July 1, 2027, and 50% of tax revenues would be earmarked in the first year of implementation, followed by 100% in the second year and beyond. But the money is ultimately subject to legislative appropriation, creating uncertainty over whether or how the money would be deployed.
Katie Theoharides, a campaign leader and former energy and environmental affairs secretary, snapped a photograph with First Lady Joanna Lydgate before addressing supporters assembled at the Fairmont Copley in Boston. Explaining the crux of the campaign, Theoharides said Massachusetts is losing the opportunity to protect more land and said supporters saw a different pathway to correct what they viewed as an underfunded issue.
“Thank you all so much for your belief in this work and for all of the dedication you have given to this,” said Theoharides, who’s now CEO of The Trustees. “It means so much — not just to us here tonight, but to everyone across the state and beyond. This will ripple across the country.”
Supporters with the Yes on 9 for a Safe Massachusetts campaign also gathered at the Fairmont Copley and celebrated their success in fending off an effort to repeal the 2024 gun safety law. Crafted in response to the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen ruling, the law installed new oversight of ghost guns, bolstered the state’s so-called red flag law, tightened firearms licensing requirements, updated the state’s assault weapons ban, expanded data collection and reporting requirements, and more.
“Communities across the commonwealth are saying yes to protecting this incredibly important legislation that we advocated for over two years ago,” campaign chair Ruth Zakarin said.
She added: “There is one thing that the voters of Massachusetts are saying no to. When we heard that our opposition wanted to use this as a playbook to take to other states with strong gun laws around the country, voters across Massachusetts said absolutely not.”
Voters rejected another effort, Question 8, that sought to roll back recreational cannabis. They overwhelmingly backed Question 1 to subject the governor’s office and Legislature to the public records law, and they also supported a measure allowing employees at the Committee for Public Counsel Services to unionize. Voters seemed divided over a measure enabling homes to be built on lots that are at least 5,000 square feet and results were uncertain around midnight.
The flood of questions this election cycle underscored Bay Staters’ escalating discontent over lawmakers’ productivity, with campaigns opting to bypass the traditional legislative process and instead take issues directly to voters. While the approach rankled top Beacon Hill Democrats, lawmakers ultimately opted against taking any direct action on the measures or striking any compromises.
Question 1 is poised to shed light on the inner workings of Beacon Hill. But the Legislature’s track record of altering voter laws and resisting the 2024 voter law for a legislative audit leaves the fate of Tuesday’s results uncertain.
Alison Kuznitz is a reporter for State House News Service and State Affairs Pro Massachusetts. Reach her at akuznitz@stateaffairs.com.
