Massachusetts Question 3: Replace party primaries with a single top-two primary
What it does. Question 3 would eliminate political party primaries for state elections. Instead there would be a single primary with all candidates, regardless of party, on one ballot; voters could vote for any candidate, and the two candidates with the most votes would advance to the general election. Candidates for governor and lieutenant governor would run and be listed jointly. Any group whose candidates for a statewide office received at least 3% of the ballots cast in the state primary would get political party status. Ballotpedia notes the presidential primary would not be included, and that it is possible for two candidates of the same party to advance. [1] [2]
Official ballot question. State Primary Elections. 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 eliminate separate party primaries for state elections and require a single primary in which all candidates appear on one ballot, voters could vote for any candidate, and the top two candidates would advance to the general election. [1]
If you vote no
A NO VOTE would make no change to the laws governing primary elections. [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 Danielle Allen of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy. It says “Many elections are over before most of us ever cast a ballot. Candidates can be blocked at party conventions. Today, two-thirds of the legislature is running unopposed.” [1]
It argues that “All candidates appear on your primary ballot, and the top two advance to November where they need a majority of votes to win. Insiders have less control and we get fresh voices running for office.” [1]
It concludes that “More competition means more accountability. Legislators who know voters can replace them listen to us and deliver real results.” [1]
Strongest case against
The official argument against was written by Vanessa A. Snow of Voter Rights MA. It says that “Similar top-two systems in California and Washington have favored wealthy, self-funded candidates who can out-advertise crowded fields and the corporate PACs seeking to purchase offices.” [1]
It argues that “Third-party and independent candidates would be shut out of the general election, and working-class candidates would lose out on institutional support and access to party resources.” [1]
It says the proposal “would limit voter choice by allowing only two candidates to advance to November” even if they belong to the same party, “reducing competition, lowering voter participation, worsening inequities, and narrowing debate.” [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.
- Small parties could still win ballot status. The official summary says the law would give political party status to any group whose candidates for any statewide office received at least 3% of the ballots cast in the state primary. Neither argument mentions this provision. [1]
- Where else top-two is used, and how ballots would look. Ballotpedia says that as of September 2025 California, Washington and Nebraska used a top-two primary for some elections. It says primary ballots under Question 3 would show the party or political designation from each candidate’s nomination papers, with the words “Endorsed by the political party or designation” added next to a candidate’s name at the request of both the candidate and the party. [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 3. 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 $7,164,298
Committee
- Coalition for Healthy Democracy 2026 $7,164,298
At least one of these committees also campaigns on Massachusetts Question 1, 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 $195,159
Committees
- Voter Rights MA $189,454
- Democratic Socialists Against Reactionary Rollbacks $5,705
At least one of these committees also campaigns on Massachusetts Question 5, Massachusetts Question 8, so its money cannot be split by measure.
Major donors
| 1199 SEIU MA PAC | $100,000 |
| MA Democratic State Committee | $63,346 |
| Progressive Massachusetts | $14,589 |
| Democratic Socialists of America, Inc. | $10,000 |
| Local 509 SEIU | $10,000 |
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 3 (summary, what a yes or no vote does, fiscal statement, 150-word arguments) — Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth (Official state voter guide, 2026)
- Massachusetts Question 3, Top-Two Primary Elections 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.