The Unified Libertarians of Massachusetts has released its positions on all nine statewide ballot questions facing state voters this November, supporting two, opposing six, and declining to take a position on a measure dealing with local housing regulations.
The Unified Libertarians, the recognized state affiliate of the Libertarian Party, published its recommendations Tuesday. Massachusetts voters will consider eight laws proposed through initiative petition and one referendum on a 2024 firearms law that significantly tightened rules on gun licensing and ownership.
The organization is recommending yes votes on Questions 1 and 5, no votes on Questions 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9, and no position on Question 7.
To place Questions 1 through 8 on the ballot, supporters first had to submit at least 74,574 certified signatures. After state lawmakers did not enact the proposals during the legislative session, petitioners then had to collect another 12,429 signatures. Question 9, meanwhile, followed a separate process, originating as a referendum petition and requiring at least 37,287 certified signatures to qualify.
A full list of the party’s reasoning behind each vote, as well as the official summary prepared by the Attorney General, is presented below:
| Question | State Summary | ULMA Position | ULMA Reasoning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Question 1 | 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. | Yes | The records of the state legislature and governor’s office are currently exempt from the state public records law, unlike those of other government agencies. And if approved this question would make them subject to that law and open to public scrutiny. There would be two remaining exemptions to the law, still shielding the governor’s office’s records relating to the formation of policy and communications between legislators and their constituents regarding access to public services, so it doesn’t go quite far enough. But it’s a big step in the right direction, and it should end the legal roadblock put up by the state legislature that has stopped the state auditor from auditing the state legislature (required by the 2024 ballot initiative approved by voters). |
| Question 2 | This proposed law would specify that employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (“CPCS”) are permitted to engage in collective bargaining with their employer. It would also require CPCS, after executing a collective bargaining agreement, to request the appropriation necessary to fund such agreement from the Governor. | No | Libertarians have zero objection to voluntary unionization or other forms of collective bargaining in the private sector as long as all the participants are willing and not coerced. But permitting government employees to unionize simply creates yet another lobby against the public interest to continue ever more exorbitant funding of government programs. If voters believe public defenders and prosecutors and their staff are underpaid, they can instruct their legislators to increase their pay the normal way. |
| Question 3 | This proposed law would eliminate political party primaries for state elections and instead establish a system where there would be a single, all-party primary in which all candidates, regardless of their party affiliation, would be listed on one ballot, and voters could vote for any candidate on the ballot. The two candidates receiving the most votes in the primary would advance to the general election ballot. This proposed law would require candidates for governor and lieutenant governor to run and be listed jointly on the ballot in the primary. This proposed law would provide political party status to any group whose candidates for any statewide office received at least 3% of the ballots cast in the state primary. | No | This question would basically eliminate third party candidates from the general election ballot. California has adopted this election method, and often the two-top vote winners are in the same party, depending upon the district both are Democrats or both Republicans, giving voters no real choice in the general election. |
| Question 4 | This proposed law would permit eligible individuals to register to vote or update their voter registration address on Election Day. An individual who is eligible to vote could register to vote on Election Day by going to the polling place in the precinct where they live during voting hours and presenting proof of residency and signing a written oath. Proof of residency could be a valid photo identification, or documentation showing the individual’s name and the address where the individual resides, such as a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, residential lease, wireless telephone statement, paycheck, current student fee statement or other document from a post-secondary school, or another government document or correspondence. The written oath would require the individual to certify that they are a citizen of the United States, are at least 18 years old, are not legally prohibited from voting, and have not and will not vote in the same election at another location. The oath would require the individual to acknowledge that providing false information is a felony punishable by not more than 5 years imprisonment or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. If an individual did not present proof of residency, they would be allowed to cast a provisional ballot, which would be counted only if the individual returned to provide the required information before the close of polls for a municipal election; within two days after a state primary; or within six days after a state election. Individuals who register to vote on Election Day would be registered to vote in future elections as well as in the election taking place that day. Individuals who are already registered to vote would not be able to change their political party affiliation on Election Day. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2028. | No | This question would enact same-day voter registration statewide, which would increase the risk of voter fraud in elections. Anyone could walk into any voting booth on election day and register on the spot. There really isn’t a need for same-day voter registration to allow greater access to voting by citizens. |
| Question 5 | This proposed law would change the limit on how much revenue the state can collect in a given year. The proposal would limit state revenue in a given year to the net amount of state revenue from the year before, increased by a rate equal to the average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts over the most recent three years. If revenue collected by the state in a given year exceeds the limit, the excess amount would be refunded to taxpayers the following year. The proposed law would include all revenue from the surtax on incomes over $1 million when calculating the revenue limit and when determining whether state revenue exceeds the limit. The provisions of the proposed law would all be effective as of July 1, 2027. The proposed law states that, if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. | Yes | Massachusetts voters created a law by ballot initiative in 1986 limiting how much the Commonwealth of Massachusetts could increase taxes on residents from year to year. The law said the state couldn’t increase taxes faster than the average increase of salaries and wages over the past three years (using the previous year’s taxes as a base level). But when the state adopted the 4% “millionaires tax” in 2022, the money collected from that law was exempted from the upward limit of taxation. If this question is passed, the state’s taxation will be at least somewhat tamped down, giving working people a little break in their state tax bill. |
| Question 6 | This proposed law would establish a Nature for All Fund that, subject to appropriation by the Legislature, would receive 50% of state taxes collected from the sale and use of sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses for the first year of its operation. After July 1, 2028, the Nature for All Fund would begin receiving, subject to appropriation by the Legislature, 100% of state taxes collected on the sale and use of sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses. The sales tax revenue received by the Nature for All Fund would exclude sales tax revenue transferred to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority State and Local Contribution Fund and the School Modernization and Reconstruction Trust Fund. The proposed law would allow the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs to spend the money in the Nature for All Fund for natural resource conservation. The proposed law would allow public and private donations to the Nature for All Fund. The proposed law would prevent the state comptroller from transferring surplus funds in the Nature for All Fund at the end of the fiscal year. It would also allow state agencies, municipalities, public charities involved in natural resource conservation, tribal governments, and other regional public entities to receive money from the Nature for All Fund. Natural resource conservation would include the conservation or restoration of land to protect drinking water, streams, rivers, lakes, coasts, farms, forests, connectivity between open spaces, and lands and natural resources of indigenous cultural significance. Natural resource conservation would also include the creation, improvement, and management of parks, trails, greenspaces or outdoor recreation access. The proposed law would establish a 15-member Nature for All Board that consists of five state officials and ten members of the public appointed by the Governor. The proposed law would require the ten members of the public to include representatives of underserved communities and indigenous peoples and at least one person with expertise or experience in natural resource conservation. The proposed law would allow the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs to spend money from the Nature for All Fund to hire staff to manage the fund. The proposed law would also require the Nature for All Board to establish rules about how the money in the Nature for All Fund should be spent, including rules regarding alignment with environmental justice principles, access to and restoration of lands and natural resources of indigenous cultural significance, promotion of affordable housing development, and other matters regarding spending and bond issuance. The proposed law would require the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs to submit an annual report to various state committees regarding the funds spent to buy or improve land in cities and towns containing environmental justice populations. The proposed law would take effect on July 1, 2027. | No | This question would use tax dollars, not private funds willingly given, to promote environmental conservation of land in Massachusetts. The slightly mitigating news is that it doesn’t raise taxes, but takes existing sales tax revenue from the sales of sporting goods, RVs and golf courses for the proposed fund. So all other state programs will now be crying for more money, as this revenue stream is taken from them. The ballot initiative also creates a new 15-person state commission to decide what to do with this new eco-slush fund. |
| Question 7 | This proposed law would allow single-family homes to be built in a residentially zoned area as long as the land on which it is to be constructed is at least 5,000 square feet, has at least 50 feet of land bordering the street, road, or public way that it faces, and has access to public sewer and water services. The proposed law would allow cities and towns to reasonably regulate certain aspects of those single-family homes, including their height, distance from neighboring buildings, open space, parking requirements, and whether they can be rented out on a short-term basis. The proposed law would also allow the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities to issue guidance or regulations to administer the proposed law. | “No position – vote your conscience” | This ballot initiative would allow property owners to build homes on their own land, even if meddling local officials scheme to prevent the construction of new houses in their town, as they do now using local ordinances and regulations. A right to build law like this would increase housing availability and likely put downward pressure on exorbitant housing prices. On the other hand, it violates subsidiarity by taking decision-making from cities and towns and centralizing the regulatory power of construction in the state, though in this case for a pro-property rights cause. |
| Question 8 | The proposed law would change the type and amount of marijuana that may legally be possessed in Massachusetts by repealing the laws that legalize, regulate, and tax the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana in Massachusetts. The proposed law would also permit persons 21 years of age and older to possess 1 ounce or less of marijuana including no more than 5 grams in the form of concentrate, and to gift or transfer to another person 21 years of age and older 1 ounce or less of marijuana including no more than 5 grams in the form of concentrate. The proposed law would also impose a civil penalty of $100 and forfeiture of the marijuana for the possession of marijuana between the weight of 1 and 2 ounces. For persons 21 years of age and younger, the proposed law would make the possession of 2 ounces or less of marijuana a civil infraction subject to a $100 fine, forfeiture of the marijuana, completion of a drug awareness program and community service, and notification to their parents or legal guardian of the offense and penalties. The proposed law would allow currently licensed adult recreational marijuana businesses to apply on an expedited basis to become a licensed medical marijuana dispensary and to sell their remaining inventory of adult recreational marijuana to medical marijuana dispensaries. The proposed law would retain the Cannabis Control Commission but modify its authority so it would regulate only the medical marijuana market. The proposed law states that, if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2028. | No | This question would eliminate legalized cannabis in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as well as restore the ban on citizens growing their own marijuana. Legalization of marijuana has taken drug gangs out of the marijuana business and kept people who enjoy a drug less dangerous than the also legal alcohol out of prison and out of the court system. |
| Question 9 | This law makes a number of changes to Massachusetts laws governing firearms. The law adds school administrators and licensed healthcare providers as parties permitted to ask a court to issue an Extreme Risk Protection Order – requiring an individual to surrender or relinquish their firearm licenses, permits, and firearms – if an individual is a present danger to self or others. The law also provides that, when issuing an Harassment Prevention Order, a court may also order the surrender of firearms licenses, permits, and firearms. The law imposes penalties for possessing, creating, and transferring untraceable “ghost gun” firearms and requires all firearms except antiques and relics, including unfinished frames and receivers that can be readily made into a finished product, to have serial numbers. The law includes privately-made guns like 3D-printed guns within the provisions governing untraceable “ghost gun” firearms. The law changes firearms licensing requirements to: (1) allow local licensing authorities to request prior license and permit information from the state, as well as access petitions for involuntary mental health commitments denied by a court in addition to prior involuntary commitments, as a part of their review of applications for licenses to carry firearms, firearm ID cards, and licenses to sell firearms; (2) require an individual to be 21 years of age to own semiautomatic rifles or shotguns; (3) add the possibility of incarceration of up to six months for a second offense of failing to report a firearm loss or theft; and (4) enable 12-15 year olds to apply for a self-defense spray permit with parental permission, and 15 to 18 year olds to apply independently. The law allows local firearm licensing authorities to transfer the responsibility to inspect firearm dealers to the State Police. The law requires local licensing authorities to attend statewide training regarding those inspections. It requires dealers to confiscate expired or suspended licenses and report them to the state and to local licensing authorities. The law changes the definition of “machine gun” to include bump stocks, trigger cranks, Glock switches and auto sears among the devices whose possession and use are subject to penalties. It expands the definition of “silencer” to include the parts used to construct a silencer. The law clarifies how to determine whether a firearm is an assault-style weapon and the circumstances under which a person may continue to possess assault-style weapons and large capacity feeding devices they already own. The law requires the state Firearm Control Advisory Board and the state Secretary of Public Safety and Security to review and update the rosters of prohibited assault-style firearms, approved firearms, and approved firearms sold for target shooting. The law clarifies requirements relating to the carry and transport of firearms in motor vehicles and ATVs. It prohibits the carrying of firearms in government buildings, polling locations, and schools, with certain exceptions. The law expands data compilation and reporting requirements to and from the state, and creates a publicly-accessible dashboard of anonymized aggregate firearm data, along with a commission to study that data. The law requires the State Police to provide training and a test for new applicants for licenses to carry or Firearm ID cards. The law establishes two special legislative commissions – one to examine funding for violence prevention services, and one to study emerging firearms technology. The law criminalizes discharging a firearm and striking a building in use. | No | State legislators significantly infringed on gun-owners’ rights with the 2024 gun law, banning some so-called “assault rifles,” enacting statewide electronic gun registration, requiring serial numbers for guns, and many more restrictions. This ballot question is worded in the reverse, perhaps with the perverse intent to confuse voters and keep the law on the books, because a “no” vote will repeal the law and a “yes” vote will not change that 2024 law now on the books. |
Independent Political Report welcomes submissions from political parties and organizations that have published similar ballot or voting guides. To share your organization’s positions, please contact a member of our editorial team.
Be First to Comment