Power to the People? Ballot Questions Revisited
September 30, 2026
By Francesca Ferraro
In 1918, Massachusetts voters narrowly—51.28% to 48.72%—approved an amendment to their state constitution establishing a state process of initiative and referendum. Born of the populist and progressive movements that swept the nation at the beginning of the twentieth century, Massachusetts’s citizen ballot proposal provision, known as Article 48, has proven to be wildly successful: Of the 192 ballot questions presented since the amendment, a whopping 115 have been approved—the majority of which have introduced a legislative constitutional amendment. And in a state famous for its high-powered party politics, supporters tout the provision as a way for voters to pursue the issues that matter most to them when the legislature has other priorities.
This November, nine citizen-proposed ballot questions will appear on the Massachusetts ballot, with issues ranging from firearms regulation to zoning laws to political party primaries. (Just a few months ago, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court blocked an additional two questions, which would have presented voters with a record-breaking eleven questions on the ballot.) Such a strong showing presents unique logistical challenges. In what order should the questions appear on the ballot? How should voters read up on such diverse, and somewhat niche, issues? Is it reasonable to expect voters to flip through a dense ballot that spans two, or even three, pages? Others are asking whether the increase in citizen ballot proposals is symptomatic of a larger political process breakdown.
But Article 48 has not been without its fair share of controversies. And as citizens have increasingly targeted the legislature in their demands, some legislators have begun to speak out. While some view Article 48 as a “sledgehammer” designed to stymie the tried-and-true legislative process, others have raised legitimate concerns about the individuals and entities that may be lurking in the background. Under state law, ballot question spending is only required to be disclosed sixty days prior to the election—after voters have been inundated with mailers, commercials, and promoted social media content for months. The financial data released exactly sixty days prior to Election Day indicates that this November’s ballot questions are backed by $21 million in funding. Question Eight, “An Act to Restore a Sensible Marijuana Policy,” has perhaps become the poster child of dark money in citizen ballot proposals: of the $3,175,625 raised in support of rolling back marijuana laws in Massachusetts in the lead up to this year’s election, all but a meager $625 was contributed by Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) Action, Inc., a Virginia-based 501(c)(4) founded by former U.S. Representative Patrick Kennedy and devoted to fighting marijuana legalization across the country.
This summer, the Massachusetts House of Representatives unanimously passed the Ballot Spending Transparency Act, which is currently under further consideration in the Senate. The Act is designed to strengthen campaign finance transparency by introducing a variety of safeguards to the ballot question process, including increasing the frequency and content of disclosures that ballot question committees must report to the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance. Critics have lambasted the Act as a covert attempt for the legislature to thwart citizens from exercising their state constitutional rights, but supporters argue that the Act will work to ensure that ballot questions reflect the genuine will of the people rather than dark money interests.
As the November election approaches and Massachusetts voters begin to educate themselves about what’s at stake, the fate of the nine ballot questions and the Ballot Spending Transparency Act are yet to be determined. But in a state that consistently raises some of the most money in connection with ballot questions in the country, one thing is certain: increasing campaign finance transparency requirements would have a transformative impact on voters’ ability to make an informed decision.