“No” out of 8: weed remains legal at mass.
It appears that Massachusetts voters have decided not to give up their legal consumption of joints, vapes, gummies and other cannabis products.
The Associated Press predicted “no” votes would prevail on Question 8, which would have repealed recreational cannabis after 10 years.
Question 8 would have overturned the decision voters made in a vote a decade ago and dismantled the recreational cannabis industry that has grown since then.
Cannabis industry supporters have argued that a repeal would pull the rug out from under an industry that employs tens of thousands of people in the state and has generated about $2 billion in tax revenue since legalization. They also argued that the vote would have eliminated a regulated industry that tests cannabis products for safety and replaced it with an illegal and more dangerous underground market.
“Yes” on the 9th: gun restrictions remain in place
While the Associated Press did not predict the results of Question 9 at 12:13 a.m., the campaign fighting to prevent the repeal of gun control laws in Massachusetts declares victory.
Question 9 was a referendum on gun control legislation passed by the state two years ago. A “no” would have repealed the law.
Just after midnight, with 49% of the votes counted, the “Yes” camp won with 69% of the votes, according to AP.
State law included a series of regulations, including penalties related to guns 3D printed or made from kits, making them difficult to trace due to a lack of serial numbers. The law also prohibits modifications that turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons and strengthens licensing laws.
“This victory belongs to the people of Massachusetts, who, through their votes, said a resounding yes to protecting this legislation and protecting our communities from gun violence,” said Ruth Zakarin, president of Yes on 9 for a Safe Massachusetts. “This campaign has shown what is possible when people unite around a shared commitment to safety, and we look forward to building on this momentum until everyone in Massachusetts can live without fear of gun violence.”
“Yes” to 1: increased access to public documents
The Associated Press predicts the state ballot question to expand public records will also pass.
Massachusetts is the only state in the country where all three branches of government are exempt from sharing information on communications, reports and other public records. Voters made it clear they wanted this to change.
The Associated Press reported Tuesday evening that the ballot question would pass with more than 80 percent of the vote, as of 12:14 a.m. Wednesday morning. The measure places the governor’s office and state Legislature under the same public records law as state agencies and municipal governments.
Supporters of the first question, including State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, said the goal of the measure is simple: provide more transparency on Beacon Hill. The ballot measure could lead to more administrative information on contracts with vendors, settlements with employees and expense records, according to an analysis by a Tufts University think tank.
The question provided specific exceptions to keep certain records private, including constituents’ communications with their legislators and legislators’ communications in which they elaborate on their policy positions.
As it became clear Tuesday evening that voters overwhelmingly supported the ballot measure, DiZoglio rejoiced.
“This is a huge, huge win for Massachusetts,” she told GBH News. “Everyone wants transparency and accountability from their elected officials. »
DiZoglio is currently in a dispute with Beacon Hill leaders over whether she can audit the state Legislature — a power, she points out, that voters gave her when they approved Question 1 in 2024.
The future of this year’s Question 1 is also uncertain, despite voter support. State lawmakers said they opposed it because it could cripple “open communications.” Beacon Hill leaders are also considering alternative legislation to the ballot question in the form of a narrower proposal to make public records accessible.
“Yes” on 3 supporters admit defeat
The campaign for Question 3, which would have fundamentally changed the way Massachusetts conducts its elections, conceded that it had lost, acknowledging that voters chose not to adopt a multi-party primary system.
While the Associated Press had not called the race as of 11:45 p.m., with 46 percent of votes counted, 61 percent voted “No,” compared to just 39 percent who voted “Yes.”
“Massachusetts people want real choices in November and elected officials who must work to earn all of our votes. This frustration is not going away tonight,” the Yes on 3 campaign said in a written statement, in which it thanked its supporters. “On this issue and others, every Massachusetts voter had a real choice and a real competition. That’s what every election should feel like. We’ll keep working until it does.”
Question 3 would have ended partisan primaries in Massachusetts, placing all candidates in a large “jungle primary” and sending the top two vote-getters to face each other in the general election, regardless of party.
Jordan Berg Powers, chairman of the No on 3 campaign, celebrated the victory during a call with GBH News.
“We’re really excited for the voters of Massachusetts,” Berg Powers said. “We thank them for preserving our democracy and putting the power in the hands of us, the people. And most of all, I’m excited because we were really just a bunch of groups and organizations that had no money behind it. Our campaign is really about people power from its core.”
Opponents argued that only the best-funded candidates would be likely to make it to the general election under a system like this.
“I think it’s a rejection of the increased role of money in politics,” Berg Powers said.
The opposition campaign pointed to financial support for the change from private equity executives as a sign that Question 3 would have given more power to wealthier interests.
“Yes” out of 6 supporters declare victory for the new nature fund
Supporters of Question 6, which would divert a portion of state sales taxes to a wildlife conservation and recreation fund, declare victory.
Question 6 would take a share of taxes on recreational amenities and spending on golf courses would be placed in a new trust called the “Nature for All Fund.”
“This is a massive message to the Legislature that this is something that is extremely popular with their constituents, no matter where they live in the Commonwealth,” David O’Neill, president and CEO of Mass Audubon, told GBH News. “And we think that will be an important message to share with the Legislature as we secure resources for the dedicated fund on an annual basis.”
The “Nature Fund for All” is not a new tax. This is actually a suggestion that the legislature take existing tax money and spend it on something specific.
“We are going to fight very hard to work with our partners in the Legislature to secure legislation and appropriations to create and implement this dedicated funding source year after year,” O’Neill said.
The Associated Press had not yet called the race as of 1 a.m. Wednesday morning. With around 56% of the votes counted, the “yes” campaign was in the lead with more than 60% of the votes.
“Yes” on 2 victories, AP projects; public defenders will soon be able to unionize
Massachusetts voters agree with the state’s public defenders forming a union, the Associated Press projects.
By early Wednesday morning, more than 60 percent of voters had supported Question 2, according to AP tallies. The measure would allow about 800 public defenders and other employees on the Public Counsel Services Committee to collectively negotiate a contract.
A technicality of state law means that, unlike most state employees, public defenders do not have the legal right to unionize. SEIU Local 888 workers and union representatives tried to push state lawmakers to pass a law allowing them to unionize for six legislative cycles, but those efforts were unsuccessful.
Supporters of Question 2 argued that the state had difficulty recruiting and retaining public defenders. The hope is that allowing them to unionize could help ensure better working conditions and encourage them to stay in their jobs longer.
Gn usa
