BOSTON — On Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2026, Massachusetts voters will decide whether to eliminate separate political party primary elections and replace them with a single primary featuring candidates from all political affiliations.
Question 3, one of nine statewide ballot questions, proposes establishing an all-party primary system in which candidates would appear on the same ballot regardless of party affiliation.
Under the proposed law, voters could select any candidate for each office, regardless of political party. The two candidates receiving the most votes in each primary race would advance to the general election, even if both belonged to the same political party.
Currently, Massachusetts conducts separate party primaries in which voters select candidates to represent their respective political parties in the general election. Candidates affiliated with other political parties or running without party affiliation may also qualify for the general election ballot.
The proposed law would also require candidates for governor and lieutenant governor to run together and appear jointly on the primary ballot.
“As written, the implementation of this petition can lead to general elections where two candidates from just one major party are the only candidates for a voter to choose from, such as two Republican candidates or two Democratic candidates,” the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions wrote in its report on Question 3, published on the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s website. “This has occurred in California, and has been stated as a contributing factor towards the decrease in turnout in general elections.”
Additionally, the measure would grant political party status to any group whose candidates for a statewide office received at least 3% of the ballots cast in the state primary.
If approved, the law would take effect Jan. 1, 2028.
Arguments for and against Question 3
Supporters of Question 3 argue that eliminating separate party primaries would increase electoral competition, reduce the influence of political party insiders and encourage elected officials to be more accountable to voters.
Danielle Allen of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, who authored the argument supporting the proposal in the state’s official voter information guide, maintains that an all-party primary system would give voters more influence over which candidates advance to general elections.
“Many elections are over before most of us ever cast a ballot. Candidates can be blocked at party conventions. Today, two-thirds of the legislature is running unopposed,” Allen wrote in her argument in favor of Question 3, as published in the Commonwealth’s official voter guide. “They can take voters for granted and ignore important issues like affordable housing, energy costs, better schools, and the audit 72% of us demanded. All-party primaries will bring accountability and transparency to Massachusetts politics by making elections more competitive, forcing politicians to listen.”
Opponents argue that the proposed system could favor wealthy, self-funded candidates while making it more difficult for independent and third-party candidates to advance to the general election.
Vanessa A. Snow of Voter Rights MA, who authored the opposing argument in the state’s official voter guide, contends that similar systems in California and Washington have benefited well-financed candidates at the expense of those with fewer resources.
“Similar top-two systems in California and Washington have favored wealthy, self-funded candidates who can out-advertise crowded fields and the corporate PACs seeking to purchase offices, while sidelining grassroots candidates and historically marginalized and underrepresented groups such as candidates of color and women,” Snow wrote in her argument against Question 3, published in the state’s official voter guide. “Third-party and independent candidates would be shut out of the general election, and working-class candidates would lose out on institutional support and access to party resources.”
Snow also argues that allowing two candidates from the same political party to advance to the general election could limit voter choice, reduce political competition, and decrease voter turnout.
What a yes or no vote means
According to the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Office, a yes vote would eliminate separate political party primaries for state elections and establish a single primary in which all candidates appear on the same ballot, with the top two advancing to the general election.
A no vote would leave the state’s existing primary election laws unchanged.
The Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration and Finance said that the proposed law would have no discernible material fiscal consequences for state or municipal governments.
Voters can review the full proposed law, official arguments for and against the measure and legislative reports on the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth’s website.
