Marblehead voters heading to the polls this fall will have more to consider than candidates for governor, Congress and the Legislature.
They will also be asked to decide nine statewide ballot questions covering everything from public records and elections to taxes, housing, marijuana and guns.
The Current is examining the questions — and what they could mean for Marblehead — in a continuing series. In this installment, we look at Questions 1-5.
QUESTION 1
Question 1 asks voters whether the governor’s office and state Legislature should be brought under Massachusetts’ public records law.
For Marblehead residents, public records requests are already a familiar part of local government. Town and school departments are subject to the state public records law and regularly respond to requests for emails, documents and other government records.
So far in 2026, Marblehead town departments have received more than 80 public records requests, according to Kyle Wylie, assistant to Town Administrator Thatcher Kezer.
The volume is also significant in the school district. Superintendent John Robidoux said Marblehead Public Schools received approximately 55 public records requests during the 2024-25 school year and 74 in 2025-26.
Robidoux said the district generally provides the first two hours of work at no charge, then assesses a fee of $25 per hour for work including searching, segregating, redacting and copying records. Fees assessed for individual requests have ranged from $150 to more than $20,000, he said.
The governor’s office and Legislature, however, are largely exempt from the public records requirements that apply to local governments and many state agencies.
A “yes” vote on Question 1 would bring the governor and Legislature under the existing public records law, with certain exemptions. A “no” vote would leave the current system in place.
State Rep. Jenny Armini, D-Marblehead, said she supports the goal of Question 1 but has “constitutional concerns about its implementation.”
“Government transparency itself is not a constitutional problem,” she said. “The question is whether the Legislature’s unique constitutional status requires a different approach to making it happen.”
Because Question 1 would place the Legislature under the existing Chapter 66 public records law, Armini said enforcement would fall to the secretary of the commonwealth, who is part of the executive branch, potentially raising separation-of-powers concerns.
The Senate asked the Supreme Judicial Court earlier this year for an advisory opinion on constitutional questions surrounding the ballot measure. Armini said the court responded that issues involving separation of powers and legislative privilege should be resolved through actual litigation if the measure becomes law rather than through an “abstract” advisory opinion.
“So, that leaves us with a ballot question that will very likely be tied up in litigation should it pass,” Armini said.
She also raised concerns about protecting communications from constituents who contact legislators about sensitive personal matters.
Question 1 includes an exemption for certain constituent communications involving requests for assistance with government benefits or services or interactions with government agencies. Armini said she does not believe that exemption goes far enough because constituents often contact lawmakers for advice or help that falls outside those categories.
The proposal also exempts certain materials related to policy development, a provision Armini supports.
“The legislative process is just that — a process — and policymakers require the ability to discuss ideas, share information, develop proposals and weigh the pros and cons in confidence,” she said.
Sen. Brendan Crighton, who represents Marblehead, declined to comment on any of the nine ballot questions.
“While it is my duty as a legislator to draft, debate and vote on legislation in the state Senate with full transparency and public accountability, ballot measures belong entirely to the voters,” he wrote in an email to the Current.
Emily DeJoy of the Marblehead Republican Town Committee said the group supports Question 1.
“We believe Massachusetts residents deserve meaningful transparency and accountability from their elected officials,” she said. “The Legislature and Governor’s Office should be subject to the same fundamental public-records standards as other government institutions.”
While the town’s Democratic Committee has not yet issued any formal positions on ballot measures, Chair Anne Gugino Carrigan said she also supports Question 1.
QUESTION 2:
Question 2 allows the Committee for Public Counsel Services, the state agency that provides attorneys to people who cannot afford them, to unionize and collectively bargain with their employer. It would have no significant town-specific impact in Marblehead.
Question 3: A major change to Massachusetts primaries
Question 3 could fundamentally change the way Massachusetts chooses candidates for state offices. Currently, Democrats and Republicans hold separate party primaries, with the winners generally advancing to the November election.
A “yes” vote would eliminate separate party primaries for state elections and replace them with a single primary ballot listing candidates regardless of political party. Voters could choose any candidate, and the two candidates receiving the most votes would advance to the general election — even if both belonged to the same party.
The proposal would also require candidates for governor and lieutenant governor to run together in the primary. The changes would take effect Jan. 1, 2028.
A “no” vote would preserve the existing primary system.
Supporters argue that the change would give voters more choices and encourage candidates to appeal to a broader electorate. Critics contend it could weaken political parties and leave voters with two general-election candidates from the same party.
The Current reached out repeatedly to the Town Clerk’s Office for comment on Questions 3 and 4, both of which could affect how local elections are administered but did not hear back.
Marblehead Board of Registrars member Margie Herrick opposes Question 3.
“All candidates would appear on the same primary ballot, and the two candidates receiving the most votes would advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation,” Herrick said. “This could result in a general election in which both candidates are from the same political party. As a result, many voters could find themselves without a general-election candidate whose political philosophy aligns with theirs. In my view, this could increase, rather than diminish, the role of political parties.”
The local Republican Town Committee also opposes Question 3.
“We believe this change could weaken the role of political parties and potentially result in a general election between two candidates from the same party, leaving voters without a candidate representing the other major political viewpoint,” DeJoy wrote. “We believe political parties play an important role in our democratic process by allowing voters with shared principles and policy goals to organize, recruit candidates and hold elected officials accountable to those platforms.”
Question 4: Registering to vote on Election Day
Question 4 asks whether Massachusetts residents should be allowed to register to vote — or update their registration address — on Election Day.
Massachusetts currently requires voters to register before an election.
A “yes” vote would establish Election Day registration. Eligible residents could register at their polling place by providing proof of residency and signing an oath affirming their eligibility. Those unable to provide proof of residency could cast a provisional ballot and later provide the required information within deadlines set by the proposed law.
The change would take effect Jan. 1, 2028.
A “no” vote would retain the existing voter-registration system.
Supporters say same-day registration would remove a barrier to voting and allow more eligible residents to participate. Opponents have raised questions about election administration, including whether local election officials would have sufficient time to verify eligibility and prevent duplicate voting.
Herrick supports Question 4.
“Same-day registration provides an opportunity for eligible voters who miss the existing registration deadline to participate in an election,” she said. “A number of states, including all of the other New England states, have adopted some form of same-day or Election Day registration.”
Herrick added, “Concerns about voter fraud should be evaluated against the safeguards included in the proposed law. Question 4 would require eligible voters registering on Election Day to provide proof of residency and sign an oath affirming their eligibility. Several studies have concluded that there is little proof of fraud from same-day registration and that the benefits of extending access for eligible voters far exceed any risk of fraud.”
The local Republican Town Committee disagrees.
“We believe every eligible Massachusetts resident should have a meaningful opportunity to vote, but we also believe our elections must be administered with strong safeguards to ensure voter eligibility and the integrity of the process,” DeJoy wrote. “Moving registration and voting to the same day would place additional responsibilities on local election officials at the time they are already administering an election.”
Board of Registrars member Tim Swigor declined to take a position on either election-related question.
“While Marblehead has a Board of Registrars of Voters, the Town Clerk is also the town’s chief election official and a voting member of the board,” Swigor wrote in an email response. “In that capacity, the Town Clerk handles many of the operational functions related to elections. I have no opinion on Questions 3 & 4.”
Question 5: Changing the state’s tax-revenue cap
Question 5 involves one of the more complicated issues on the ballot: the state law commonly known as Chapter 62F.
The law limits how much tax revenue Massachusetts can collect and requires excess revenue to be returned to taxpayers when collections exceed the limit.
Under Question 5, the state’s annual revenue limit would instead be based on the previous year’s actual net tax revenue, increased by a rate equal to the average growth in Massachusetts wages and salaries over the previous three years. Revenue collected above that limit would be refunded to taxpayers the following year.
The proposal would also include revenue from the surtax on incomes over $1 million when calculating the limit and determining whether collections exceeded it.
A “yes” vote would adopt the new formula, effective July 1, 2027. A “no” vote would leave the existing law unchanged.
The distinction may sound technical, but it could have consequences for state finances by changing the calculation used to determine when excess tax revenue must be returned to taxpayers.
For municipalities such as Marblehead, the debate also has a local dimension. State funding supports local schools, roads and other municipal services, so changes in state revenue could have implications for cities and towns.
The local Republican Town Committee supports Question 5.
“We believe taxpayers should benefit when state revenue grows beyond what is reasonably necessary to fund government,” DeJoy wrote. “Massachusetts already has a mechanism intended to return excess tax revenue to taxpayers, and Question 5 would make that mechanism more closely tied to actual state collections.”
DeJoy continued, “From our perspective, the issue is fundamentally about fiscal discipline and accountability. Government should not automatically retain every additional dollar simply because it is collected. Establishing clearer limits on revenue growth can provide taxpayers with greater protection while encouraging the state to prioritize spending and live within reasonable fiscal constraints.”
The Current contacted several town leaders, including Finance Director Sean Stroebels, for comment but did not hear back.
