October 14, 2026
PERHAPS THE MOST controversial of the nine ballot questions that will appear before Massachusetts voters in November is Question 3, which would replace partisan primaries with all-party primaries for most state, federal, county, and district offices, allowing the two candidates receiving the most votes to advance to the general election.
CommonWealth Beacon hosted a debate Tuesday night at Northern Essex Community College in Haverhill between Danielle Allen, a Harvard University professor who founded the group advancing the ballot initiative, and Jordan Berg Powers, chair of Voting Rights MA, which is opposing the ballot question.
The debate comes as election day nears, and the question draws high-profile supporters and opponents. Former Republican Gov. Charlie Baker and former Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick recently united in favor of the question, while other high-profile figures, including US Rep. Ayanna Pressley and Sen. Ed Markey, have lined up to oppose all-party primaries.
A recent CommonWealth Beacon survey conducted by the MassINC Polling Group found that Question 3 had the support of 43 percent of likely voters, with 36 percent opposed and 20 percent undecided.
Given the election dynamics of deep-blue Massachusetts, the state has long had uncompetitive elections. In fact, Ballotpedia has dubbed the Bay State home to the least competitive state legislative races in the country for the last five cycles in a row. This cycle, about three in five House and Senate districts will have a single candidate on the ballot. In her opening remarks, Allen argued that the change to primary elections would send a message to a notoriously unproductive and unresponsive state Legislature.
“We have the fewest competitive elections in Massachusetts of any state in the country. Without competition, elected officials don’t have to listen to voters,” Allen said.
Berg Powers, pointing to outside spending and money in politics, argued that while election system reform is necessary to remove barriers and encouraged more people to run for office, all-party primaries would do “the opposite.”
“You’re actually going to see fewer people run for office, and when they do, it’s going to be more expensive and more ugly,” he said. “I agree there isn’t enough choice, and there aren’t enough candidates running for office. Let’s actually make it easier for people to run for office.”
He pointed to other solutions, such as changing the date of primary elections, implementing ranked-choice voting, lowering the signature collection requirements for those running for office, and establishing public financing of campaigns.
“I 100 percent agree that we need public financing for candidates, and indeed we voted for that here in Massachusetts, but the Legislature repealed it,” Allen responded, referencing a 1998 ballot question passed by voters that created a voluntary system of public financing for candidates. “This is our problem. We often do things that are good for democracy in this state. We tell the Legislature what we want — the audit, for example — and then the Legislature does not follow through.”
Berg Powers said that an all-party primary system would only benefit wealthier candidates and would make candidates more reliant on donors.
“In this system, you can’t risk one of your two possible top twos going to somebody who doesn’t have a chance to win. How do we determine who has a chance to win? That’s money,” he said. “It shortcuts to the types of people who are able to run for office, which is people who have access to the funds to compete in the system.”
Allen pushed back, arguing that an all-party primary would ultimately increase the number of candidacies in an election and reduce the rate at which incumbents are retained in office, pointing to Washington and California, which both have all-party primary systems, as examples.
Republicans do not hold a single statewide or congressional seat in Massachusetts, and they are outnumbered in the Legislature by more than six to one. When asked whether the adoption of Question 3 would disadvantage Republicans specifically, Allen responded by saying an all-party primary would benefit both parties in Massachusetts by no longer gatekeeping who can run for office on party lines.
“The entire point is that the general electorate — the bigger electorate — gets the decisive vote,” she said. “The Republicans should have the chance of seeing better, stronger candidacies — people who actually have the potential to win in the general election. Currently, the way the MassGOP operates is they’re routinely nominating people who have no chance of winning in the general election. This gives them incentives to open up a different pipeline of candidates.”
Question 3 has been wholeheartedly embraced by a group of private equity backers and donors — a sign that wealthy interests see something to gain under an all-party primary, Berg Powers argued.
“These people are not bastions of trying to make the world more just. They are in it to make themselves a little bit richer and keep the Gilded Age going. That’s why they’re investing so much money in this system,” Berg Powers said.
Question 3 would also eliminate the rules that require statewide office seekers to secure at least 15 percent of delegate votes at party conventions, effectively reducing the role of political parties in the nominating process. The Massachusetts Democratic Party and the Massachusetts Republican Party both oppose Question 3.
Other opponents of the initiative include organized labor groups like the Massachusetts AFL-CIO and progressive activists such as Act on Mass, while other notable supporters include Auditor Diana DiZoglio and the NAACP New England Area Conference.
“I don’t want to open my ballot the way we all have and look down the line and see just one name per office,” Allen said in her closing remarks. “I want meaningful choice in November, and I want a legislature that listens.”
Berg Powers ended by saying he knows what it’s like to try to get new candidates to run for office in Massachusetts, and “not a single one of them has ever said it would be easier to run for office if it costed more and took longer.”
“We’re not opposing this initiative because we love what’s happening. We’re worried that all the problems that we have will get worse,” he said.
Courtesy of Commonwealth Beacon
