2026 MA Elections: Question 3 Would Eliminated Party-Based Primaries

Massachusetts voters will have a chance to choose how they select candidates for a statewide general election as part of Question 3 on the ballot on Nov. 3.

The initiative would eliminate party-based primaries for state office and, instead, advance the top two vote-getters in the primary to the general election ballot. The exception would be races for governor where primary voters would select a governor/lt. governor ticket.

• 2026 MA Elections: Question 9 Would Codify Stronger State Gun Laws

Supporters said the move would create more competition — especially in state legislative seats where 60 percent of Massachusetts incumbents are running unopposed this election cycle.

Opponents argue that it would do little to encourage more people to run and question the financial support for the initiative that they said is overwhelmingly coming from a small group of private equity titans.

"What we can see through is that big money has never had our interests at heart," said State Rep. Lydia Edwards (D-Boston) in a recent WGBH-FM forum on Question 3. "Big money has never really cared to invest in our democracy for the good of all of us. We have democratic reform on the ballot — same-day registration, no big money there. We have public records on the ballot — big money isn't there.

"Big money is where it wants to be because it wants to purchase the system. It will then be able to control the results of that. Top two means the top two who raise the most money. Right now, we don't need more money in politics."

Danielle Allen, Chair of Coalition for a Health Democracy, said eliminating the party primary would also have the benefit of limiting the impact of the state conventions — where party rules state that most candidates must receive 15 percent support of party delegates to even make the primary ballot — and create a system where more candidates can build name recognition for future runs by advancing to the general election.

She also cites support for the initiatives from a diverse group that includes former governors Charlie Baker and Deval Patrick, as well as select unions and mayors.

"We are a coalition that is multi-racial, multi-generational, cross-class and cross-ideological — a genuine supermajority for democracy," she said. "Vote Yes on 3 to have real choices in November. Vote Yes on 3 so the legislature will listen to us."

Allen predicts there would be a "riotous outcry" if Question 3 passes and the state legislature fails to enact it — as it has done since the last election when the state auditor's ability to audit the legislature passed with 72 percent of the vote in favor. Legislative leaders have argued that vote, while popular, violates the separation of powers within state government.

If passed and enacted, Massachusetts would become the fourth state — joining Alaska, California and Washington — to eliminate party-based primaries. Most municipalities employ the system to determine local elections in Massachusetts.

"It really matters that the general election gets to decide (among the two favorite candidates)," Allen said. "The general election is where 50 to 70 percent of voters turn out. The turnout is younger and more diverse than the primary election. That's just a rock-solid fact.

"So the question is: Are you putting the decision in the hands of the more diverse electorate or the less diverse electorate?"

Edwards said Question 3 is more of a Trojan horse funded by private equity than a true reform that would lead to a more diverse state government.

"We have some powerhouses who have really broken down and taken out glass ceilings in this elitism that really does exist in both parties," Edwards said, "and they are overwhelmingly No on 3."

More on Patch:

• Costco Proposes New Store + Major Retail Chain Closing: MA Business Week