Question 1 is the most popular measure on the Massachusetts ballot. It polls at 84 percent yes and 7 percent no, the widest margin of any of the nine questions, and no committee has registered to oppose it.
It would also make the Legislature and the Governor’s office subject to the public records law for the first time. Massachusetts is the only state where all three branches claim exemption.
The interesting part is not whether it passes. It is what the two new exemptions do, and what the Supreme Judicial Court pointedly refused to decide about it in April.
The Attorney General’s summary, verbatim
“This proposed law would make most records held by the Legislature and the Office of the Governor public records under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. This proposed law would exempt documents related to the development of public policy and communications between legislators and their constituents, if those communications are reasonably related to a constituent’s request for assistance in obtaining government-provided benefits or services or interacting with a government agency.”
What your vote does
A YES vote folds the General Court and the office of the Governor into the definition of entities holding “public records,” making their records requestable and appealable like any state agency’s.
A NO vote leaves both exempt.
How it works, and the exemption that matters
The measure amends G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. Twenty-sixth, the definition of “public records,” and G.L. c. 66, §§ 6A and 18. The core edit is a single insertion adding “or by the general court, or by the office of the governor of the commonwealth” to the definition.
That drafting choice is the whole design. Rather than building a bespoke transparency regime for the Legislature, it drops the Legislature into the existing one. Which means every exemption that already applies to state agencies applies to the Legislature too, all twenty-plus of them: personnel and medical files, law enforcement investigatory materials, trade secrets, security records, and the rest.
On top of those, the petition adds two new ones. Here is the second, in full:
“(x) communications, memoranda, drafts or other documents relating to developing policy positions of members of the general court or the governor of the commonwealth.”
Read that carefully, because it is the provision that will determine how much this measure actually changes.
An exemption for deliberative material already exists. Existing subparagraph (d) covers “policy positions being developed by the agency,” but it is limited to inter-agency and intra-agency memoranda. The new (x) is broader on its face: it is not limited to memoranda, not limited to communications between agencies, and expressly reaches “drafts or other documents.”
Whether “developing policy positions” describes a narrow category of deliberative drafts or most of what a legislative office generates is the question. Nothing in the text answers it, and no court has construed it.
The other new exemption, subparagraph (w), covers constituent casework communications, which is the uncontroversial half and the half the Senate President has said she is most concerned about.
Two drafting notes
The letters collide. The petition inserts new subparagraphs “(w)” and “(x)” after existing subparagraph (v). But the statute already has a (w), and it acquired a new (x) by Chapter 16 of the Acts of 2025, effective November 5, 2025, which is after the Attorney General certified this petition on September 3, 2025. If Question 1 passes, four subparagraphs will carry two letters. That is a codification problem rather than a substantive one, and no official source has addressed how it gets resolved.
Section 4 rewrites a statute the summary never mentions. The petition strikes and replaces the third sentence of G.L. c. 66, § 18, concerning veterans’ services records. The Attorney General’s summary does not mention it.
Effective date: January 1, 2027. The petition says so expressly, which makes it one of the few questions this year with a stated date rather than the constitutional default.
What the SJC decided, and what it refused to decide
Question 1 was never challenged by an opponent. What happened instead is that the Senate asked the Justices for an advisory opinion, and the answer was more interesting than a challenge would have been.
In Opinion of the Justices to the Senate, SJC-13908, decided April 27, 2026, all seven Justices responded to a Senate order on House No. 5004. The Senate asked five questions. The Court answered two and declined three.
Answered. The petition proposes a law, not a legislative rule, and is therefore properly before the Legislature:
“its principal purpose is to provide the public with a new right of access to the records of the General Court and the office of the Governor… The measure would thus alter the legal rights of ‘persons outside the Legislature.'”
The Court also held the measure “does not relate to the powers of courts,” clearing a separate article 48 exclusion.
Declined. The three constitutional questions, whether the measure intrudes on the Senate’s power to set its own rules, whether it violates separation of powers under article 30, and whether it infringes legislative privilege under article 21, were expressly left open:
“Whether this multifaceted regime, or any particular aspect of it, intrudes on the Senate’s authority to set its own rules, violates the separation of powers, or infringes either legislative privilege or legislative immunity are questions not amenable to consideration in the abstract.”
“Instead, the better course is to wait and, if the initiative is enacted in its current form and is not amended by the Legislature, to consider any challenge to its constitutionality in the context of a future, concrete dispute.”
That is an invitation. If Question 1 passes, the constitutional fight has not happened yet; it has been scheduled.
One caution for anyone looking this up: the Court issued a second advisory opinion the same day, SJC-13909, same case name, consecutive docket, addressing a different petition on legislative stipends. That one reached the opposite conclusion, holding the measure proposed a rule rather than a law. They are easy to confuse.
Who is paying for it
The supporting committee, Committee for Transparency and Democracy, reported $241,971 raised and $150,179 spent through December 31, 2025, leaving $91,792 on hand. These are gross receipts.
The donor list is short and top-heavy:
- Committee to Elect Diana DiZoglio, $150,000. The State Auditor’s own campaign committee, 62 percent of everything raised.
- David Diantonio, CEO of McCue Corporation, $25,000
- Michael Kennealy, $10,000; Krisbharmony LLC, $10,000; Kathy Stevens, $10,000
- Five donors at $5,000: Cyrus Holding Corporation, Elaine Dickinson, the law firm Lichten and Liss-Riordan, the Pioneer Institute, and Teamsters Local 25
- A long tail of contributions of $4,000 and below, most under $100
Nearly the entire outlay, $150,000, went to a single signature-gathering vendor.
DiZoglio is the second of the ten first signers of the petition. The lead signer is Danielle Allen, the Harvard professor and former gubernatorial candidate.
One number you may see attributed to Question 1 does not belong to it. A separate committee, Coalition for Healthy Democracy 2026, has raised roughly $2.2 million, and OCPF lists it as supporting both Question 1 and Question 3. That total is a single undifferentiated figure covering two campaigns. Reporting it as Question 1 money would overstate this campaign by roughly tenfold.
No committee has registered to oppose Question 1.
All figures stop at December 31, 2025. The next filing is due September 4, 2026, covering January 1 through August 30.
The case for
Massachusetts is the only state in the country where the Legislature, the Governor, and the Judiciary are all exempt from the public records law. That is the proponents’ central fact and it is accurate.
Paul Craney of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance put it directly: “Beacon Hill leaders have operated in the shadows for too long.”
Justin Silverman of the New England First Amendment Coalition made the structural argument for why this had to come by ballot rather than legislation: “I think for most legislators, it is a very difficult sell to pass a bill that would open them up to more public scrutiny, more accountability, and require more transparency than our current law affords.”
Governor Healey supports it, with a caveat: “I’ll vote yes. Provided that there are certain exemptions that we’ve talked about in the past.”
Supporters include the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, Act on Mass, Progressive Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, and the New England First Amendment Coalition, a coalition that does not usually appear on the same side of anything.
The case against
There is no organized opposition campaign, so the arguments have to be taken from the Legislature, where they were made in a different form: a competing bill.
The Senate passed S.3200 on July 30, 2026, by a vote of 34 to 6. It contains a “sole and exclusive remedy” clause that critics say would preempt Question 1 if the ballot measure passes.
Senate President Karen Spilka’s stated objection is constituent privacy:
“It’s my understanding that the way that this ballot initiative may be written is that confidential information about our constituents collected through our offices may not, in every circumstance, be able to be excluded… I believe we need to keep all of that confidential.”
The petition’s subparagraph (w) is written to address exactly that, which makes this a dispute about whether the drafting is adequate rather than about the principle.
A more pointed criticism came from Senator Becca Rausch, whose own bill the question was modeled on:
“The ballot question is a poorly copied version of legislation I have been filing since my first term… I made mistakes in that drafting, mistakes I now see, thanks to further conversations with colleagues, advocates, and experts. The bill before us is better than what I wrote and filed.”
DiZoglio’s response to the competing bill was that the Legislature is trying to preempt the voters:
“This is unconstitutional. People have a coequal right to the Legislature to create laws under our constitution. What does it mean if the Legislature can just go into session and draft laws that preempt ballot questions and upend the will of the people they supposedly represent, before they even have a chance to give their say? It’s a constitutional crisis.”
The substantive case against, distinct from the institutional one, is the (x) exemption. A transparency measure whose deliberative exemption is broader than the one applied to executive agencies may deliver less than 84 percent of voters expect.
Where it stands
The UMass Amherst and WCVB poll fielded August 5 to 12, 2026, surveying 800 registered voters with a margin of error of 4.4 percent:
- Yes 84 percent (54 definitely, 30 probably)
- No 7 percent
- Undecided 7 percent, do not understand 3 percent
That is the strongest showing of any question on the ballot.
One structural note that applies to all nine questions: an initiative passes only if it wins a majority and draws yes votes equal to at least 30 percent of all ballots cast. At 84 percent support and near the top of the ballot, Question 1 is in no danger from that threshold.
Common questions
What would Question 1 change?
It would make most records held by the Legislature and the Governor’s office subject to the public records law, by adding both to the statutory definition of entities holding public records. Massachusetts is currently the only state where all three branches are exempt.
What records would still be secret?
All existing public records exemptions would apply, plus two new ones: constituent casework communications, and “communications, memoranda, drafts or other documents relating to developing policy positions” of legislators or the Governor. The second is broader than the deliberative exemption that currently applies to state agencies.
Did the SJC rule on whether this is constitutional?
No. In an April 27, 2026 advisory opinion the Justices held the petition proposes a law rather than a legislative rule, and does not relate to the powers of courts. They expressly declined to reach separation of powers, legislative privilege, or the Senate’s rulemaking authority, saying those should be decided in a concrete dispute after enactment.
When would it take effect?
January 1, 2027, by express provision in the petition.
Who is funding it?
The supporting committee raised $241,971 through 2025, of which $150,000 came from State Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s own campaign committee. No committee has registered in opposition.
Petition text and the Attorney General’s summary from House No. 5004 and certified Initiative Petition 25-14. Advisory opinion quoted from Opinion of the Justices to the Senate, SJC-13908, decided April 27, 2026; the opinion is reported as a slip opinion and no official reporter citation is available. Campaign finance from OCPF filings covering activity through December 31, 2025; 2026 reports are due September 4, 2026. Polling from UMass Amherst and WCVB, fielded August 5 to 12, 2026, 800 registered voters, margin of error 4.4 percent. The official ballot title and the arguments for and against appear in the Secretary’s voter information guide, which had not been published as of this writing. General information, not legal advice.