What you need to know about Question 3: Creating all-party primaries

Gal Tziperman Lotan is a digital producer for GBH’s Morning Edition.

October 20, 2026

This measure would change the way primary elections work in Massachusetts, shifting from party-based primaries to a top-two system.

To understand how this would work, let’s look at how we do primaries now: Republicans run against other Republicans, Democrats against other Democrats, and the winners of each election face off on the general ballot along with any independent candidates.

If this measure passes, all qualifying candidates will appear on the same primary ballot regardless of their party affiliation. Then, the two candidates who get the most votes will face off again in the general election.

Become a GBH sponsor

This would change how we do statewide elections, like races for governor, state representatives and senators and congressional seats. City and town races will remain as they are now — some cities, including Boston, already run on a system like this.

What do supporters say?

Primaries have lower voter turnout than general elections. If only one party puts forth candidates, that means the election is decided without input from the majority of voters.

Supporters say that opening primaries to all candidates regardless of party affiliation gives voters more choices, leaving us with candidates who feel accountable to the entire voting populace, not just one party’s base.

“Everybody is getting ballots right now. When folks look at their ballots, if you look down the list, a whole lot of people in Massachusetts will see one candidate for most of the lines on the ballot. That’s the problem,” Danielle Allen, a supporter of Question 3 with the Coalition for Healthy Democracy 2026, told GBH’s Boston Public Radio. She’s also a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School. “We have no choice in our general election.”

What do opponents say?

Become a GBH sponsor

Opponents argue changing the primary elections in this way would have the opposite effect supporters are hoping for, limiting choice to a maximum of two candidates in general elections.

State Sen. Lydia Edwards, who opposes this measure, said she’s also concerned that longer campaigns would favor candidates who have more money. “The fact is, a lot of the folks who are funding this are also funding the privatization of our public schools,” Edwards said. “They will want a return on their investment, and that’s how money works, and that’s how this flows into our democracy. We don’t need more money in politics.”

Who is paying for this?

Coalition for Healthy Democracy 2026 has spent $4 million in favor of this question, by far the most of any ballot question in Massachusetts this cycle. Its funders include Randy Peeler of Berkshire Partners, contributing $1 million; Andrew Balson, founder of the private equity firm Cove Hill Partners, contributing nearly $800,000; and Joshua Bekenstein, a co-founder of the private equity and venture capital firm Bain Capital, contributing $500,000.

On the opposing side, the group Voter Rights MA has spent about $50,000 against this measure. Its money came from the union SEIU 1099, contributing $100,000, and the MA Democratic State Committee, contributing just over $60,000.

Bottom line:

A “Yes” vote would shift most elections in Massachusetts from a party-based primary system to an all-party primary and a top-two general. A “No” vote would keep elections as they are.