Election 2026 › Ballot questions
Question 1
Public records law expansion
This question asks voters whether Massachusetts should extend the public records law to cover the Legislature and governor’s office.
What your vote means
If this passes
The House, Senate, and governor’s office would become subject to the public records law. They would still be able to withhold communications related to assisting constituents or developing policy positions.
If this fails
The status quo, in which the Legislature is completely exempt and the governor's office can deem itself exempt from requirements to release records on a case-by-case basis, would remain in place.
The breakdown
This ballot question would apply the state’s existing public records law to cover the Legislature, which is currently exempt, and the governor’s office, which is sometimes covered but often declares itself exempt on a case-by-case basis.
Virtually all other government entities — including municipal offices, public school districts, and many offices in the state’s executive branch — are already subject to the public records law, which requires officials to release documents and correspondence in response to requests. The law has some exemptions built in to shield sensitive information like personally identifying details, materials related to developing policy positions, and contract deliberations.
The proposal builds on years of debate over transparency on Beacon Hill. Democratic legislative leaders routinely announce plans to take up major bills, or significantly amended measures, with a day’s notice or less. They often make the most crucial decisions in private meetings, allowing the public only to glimpse votes and perfunctory remarks on matters whose fates have already been sealed behind closed doors.
Diana DiZoglio, a former lawmaker herself, was elected auditor in 2022 and has led a push to force more public scrutiny of the Legislature. Last election cycle, DiZoglio proposed — and 72 percent of voters approved — a ballot question explicitly authorizing her office to audit the Legislature, but no audit has taken place because lawmakers continue to resist a probe, arguing that it would be unconstitutional.
Led by DiZoglio, transparency advocates pitched the public records law expansion as a way to counter Beacon Hill’s secrecy and top-down style of policymaking. Opponents of the ballot measure argue that this transparency reform blurs the constitutional separation of powers and should be made through the Legislature.
Massachusetts is the only state in the nation where the governor’s office, Legislature, and judiciary are all free from public records law requirements.
Effective date
January 1, 2027
What this does NOT change
The judiciary would remain exempt from public records requirements.
How did we get here?
Massachusetts regularly draws criticism for having one of the least transparent state governments in the country. The Society of Professional Journalists awarded Massachusetts its 2026 Black Hole Award, which it describes as “an annual dishonor recognizing government entities that demonstrate a troubling lack of transparency and disregard for the public’s right to know.”
Both the House and Senate have responded to the ballot question with legislative maneuvers that could render it moot. Each branch approved a bill that would apply the existing public records law to the governor’s office, and create a new records framework unique to the Legislature, requiring some materials to become publicly available, but a narrower set than under the ballot question.
The bills also include language that, if included in a final House-Senate compromise, could force the Legislature’s preferred version to supersede the ballot question even if voters approve it. It’s not clear if that trigger will survive private House-Senate negotiations or when a final bill will emerge.
-
Maura Healey, then governor-elect, says she would not claim to be exempt from public records law.
-
Gov. Healey’s office claims to be exempt from several public records requests.
-
Voters approve ballot question allowing state auditor to audit the Legislature by a margin of 72 percent to 28 percent.
House, Senate Democrats rebuff DiZoglio’s audit attempts.
Transparency organizers file ballot question to expand public records law.
Secretary of state’s office announces campaign collected more than 89,000 signatures, making it eligible to advance.
Supreme Judicial Court issues nonbinding opinion that the ballot measure meets constitutional requirements after the state Senate asks for clarification.
Voters decide whether to expand public records law.
What is each side saying?
Supporters say
Watchdogs and the press will be able to better hold power to account with greater access to information, including what lawmakers and the governor’s office say in emails and other correspondence with figures such as lobbyists. Plus, most other government entities — including municipal offices, public school districts, and many offices in the state’s executive branch — are already subjected to the public records law.
Opponents say
Adding the Legislature to the existing public records law, which is managed by the secretary of state, will subject the legislative branch to executive branch oversight in violation of the constitutional separation of powers. Lawmakers could have their free deliberations chilled by exposing internal communications to public scrutiny, especially if malicious actors misrepresent or take out of context information acquired via records requests.
Related coverage
Election Day: November 3, 2026
