Massachusetts Question 2: Let public defender agency employees bargain collectively
What it does. Question 2 would specify that employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) may engage in collective bargaining with their employer. CPCS provides legal representation to people who are entitled to a lawyer and cannot afford one. After executing a collective bargaining agreement, CPCS would have to request from the Governor the appropriation needed to fund it. [1] [2]
Official ballot question. Collective Bargaining for CPCS Employees. 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 specify that Committee for Public Counsel Services employees may form a union to collectively bargain with their employer. [1]
If you vote no
A NO VOTE would make no change to the law governing labor relations for Committee for Public Counsel Service employees. [1]
What it would cost
The state’s fiscal statement, written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance, says CPCS “receives its funding, in part, from state government appropriations” and that “The fiscal impact of the proposed law is difficult to project due to the uncertainty regarding the outcomes of any such collective bargaining by CPCS employees.” [1]
Both sides
Strongest case for
The official argument in favor was written by Tom McKeever of Labor Unions for Public Counsel Workers Rights. It says a yes vote “will give employees of the Massachusetts Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) the right to organize a union and collectively bargain with their employer if they choose to do so.” [1]
It argues that CPCS employees “provide critical support for the constitutional right to counsel,” yet “unlike other state employees, CPCS employees do not currently have the right to choose whether to organize and collectively bargain over wages, benefits and working conditions.” [1]
It concludes that the measure “simply gives CPCS employees the right to make that choice for themselves.” [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 collective bargaining “creates serious operational and fiscal risks for the judiciary,” because CPCS “operates as an independent judicial branch agency tasked with providing constitutional defense to indigent clients.” [1]
It argues that bargaining “could disrupt existing management and supervisory frameworks, introduce ambiguity into lines of authority, and create operational inefficiencies.” [1]
It adds that labor-relations changes of this scale “could have unintended consequences for the delivery of legal services, particularly if they limit the agency’s ability to respond flexibly to fluctuating caseloads, staffing needs, and court demands.” [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.
- The funding request. Ballotpedia reports the measure would require CPCS to request funding from the Governor for an agreement within 30 days after entering into a collective bargaining contract. The official summary says CPCS would have to request the appropriation after executing the agreement. [2] [1]
- Who the employees are. Ballotpedia reports that CPCS has approximately 500 staff attorneys, contracts with about 3,000 private attorneys who are assigned cases through it, and is governed by a 15-member committee appointed by the governor, legislative leaders and the Supreme Judicial Court. [2]
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 2. 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 $1,073,765
Committees
- Labor Unions for Public Counsel Workers Rights $1,068,060
- Democratic Socialists for a Fair Massachusetts $5,705
At least one of these committees also campaigns on Massachusetts Question 1, Massachusetts Question 4, Massachusetts Question 7, Massachusetts Question 9, so its money cannot be split by measure.
Major donors
| SEIU Local 888 | $542,060 |
| National Association of Government Employees | $526,000 |
| Democratic Socialists of America, Inc | $5,000 |
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 2 (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 2, Permit Collective Bargaining for Committee for Public Counsel Services Employees 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.