Massachusetts Question 1: Make most Legislature and governor’s office records public
What it does. Question 1 would make most records held by the Legislature and the Office of the Governor public records under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. It 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. [1]
Official ballot question. Expanding the Public Records Law. Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026? [1]
If you vote yes
A YES VOTE would make most records held by the Legislature and the Office of the Governor public records under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. [1]
If you vote no
A NO VOTE would make no change to the Massachusetts Public Records Law. [1]
What it would cost
The state’s fiscal statement, written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance, says the proposed law “has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances.” [1]
Both sides
Strongest case for
The official argument in favor was written by Diana DiZoglio of the Committee for Transparency and Democracy. It says “Good government groups rank our state the least transparent in the nation. We’re one of only two states where both the Governor’s office and the Legislature claim a blanket exemption from the public records law.” [1]
It argues that “Every city, town, and state agency must follow that law, but the politicians on Beacon Hill exempted themselves,” and that the measure “protects constituent privacy” and has no cost to taxpayers. [1]
It adds that “In 2024, 72% of voters said yes to auditing the Legislature,” and that Question 1 “will give you and every taxpayer the ability to access public records directly.” [1]
Strongest case against
No organized group urged a no vote, so the Secretary of the Commonwealth compiled the official argument against, in part from the Legislature’s Majority Report. It says the law “includes overly broad and poorly defined exemptions,” and that the temporary exemption for policy development “will chill open communications by lawmakers, raising significant constitutional concerns.” [1]
It argues that “The narrow protection for constituent communications creates serious privacy risks,” because the law leaves open to disclosure “all other general constituent communications, such as emails and letters from citizens expressing personal political views, sharing sensitive local grievances, or criticizing lawmakers.” [1]
It concludes that “this measure creates a flawed framework that fails to deliver genuine accountability while actively compromising constituent privacy.” [1]
What neither side is saying
Context that bears on what this measure does or who it affects but that the arguments above do not address. These are sourced facts, not arguments for or against the measure.
- How it reached the ballot. The petition was presented to the Legislature, which did not enact it. A majority of the Legislature’s Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions voted on May 4, 2026 to recommend that the General Court “take no action,” and the question went to voters under the initiative process. [1]
- Who has endorsed it. Ballotpedia lists supporters from both major parties, including the Democratic Party of Massachusetts and the Republican Party of Massachusetts, and no organized opposition group. The official argument against was written by the Secretary of the Commonwealth rather than an opponent. [2] [1]
Editorial context, not the opinion of We Elect. Each point is a fact we found in a source we opened and read; where sources disagree or data are missing, we say so. How we choose these.
Follow the money
Contributions reported by committees registered to support or oppose Question 1. Major donors are those who gave $100,000 or more; where fewer than three did, up to five of the largest listed donors giving $5,000 or more are shown.
Supporting (Yes)
Total raised $7,544,940
Committees
- Coalition for Healthy Democracy 2026 $7,164,298
- Committee for Transparency and Democracy $374,937
- Democratic Socialists for a Fair Massachusetts $5,705
At least one of these committees also campaigns on Massachusetts Question 2, Massachusetts Question 3, Massachusetts Question 4, Massachusetts Question 7, Massachusetts Question 9, so its money cannot be split by measure.
Major donors
| David Randolph Peeler | $1,050,000 |
| Andrew Balson | $750,000 |
| Joshua Bekenstein | $500,000 |
| Mark Nunnelly | $375,000 |
| Brian Conway | $300,000 |
| Dwight Poler | $300,000 |
Opposing (No)
Total raised —
No committee registered.
Reported contributions through Oct. 20, 2026, as compiled by Ballotpedia from state filings; the source lists each side’s top donors, not every donor. Figures are reported contributions and may be updated as new reports are filed. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Official filings: Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF).
Sources
- 2026 Information for Voters: Question 1 (summary, what a yes or no vote does, fiscal statement, 150-word arguments, legislative report) — Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth (Official state voter guide, 2026)
- Massachusetts Question 1, Public Records Requirements for Legislature and Governor’s Office Initiative (2026) — Ballotpedia (Reference (quotes supporters and opponents), accessed 2026-10-28)
Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Last reviewed 2026-10-28. How we write both sides.
We Elect is a Brunner Creative site. Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Each side is written to be the strongest case its supporters would recognize, and every claim is tied to a source we opened and read.