Yes on 1 yard sign—fill out this form to request one!
Massachusetts has long been an outlier when it comes to compliance with public records law.
Public records law is our state version of the federal “Freedom of Information Act” or “FOIA” request. Like the federal law, it is based on a principle that the public has the right to view records produced on our behalf as part of the operations of government. All government records are assumed to be public records unless covered by an exemption to protect, for example, national security, or the privacy of government employees. In Massachusetts, all municipal officials, sheriffs, boards, and most state-level offices are subject to public records law.
The Massachusetts legislature writes our state’s public records law, but legislators have exempted themselves from it. We are one of just six states in the country where the legislature is fully exempt from public records law. Even more rare, we are one of just two states in the country where our Governor’s office is exempt from the public records law. These exemptions mean that the school committee in my hometown of Natick is subject to stricter public scrutiny than the politicians who write and implement our $62 billion state budget.
Earlier this year, the Society for Professional Journalists awarded Massachusetts its dishonorable “Black Hole Award,”which recognizes “government entities that demonstrate a troubling lack of transparency and disregard for the public’s right to know.” They cite the Legislature and governor’s exemptions in their explanation of Massachusetts’ selection, writing:
“Access to public records is not optional – it is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy. When broad swaths of government operate outside public records laws, or when compliance is routinely delayed or obstructed, the public’s right to know is fundamentally compromised.”
Question 1, Expanding the Public Records Law takes a step to fixing some of these gaps with a very simple adjustment: removing the exemption for the Legislature and governor’s offices and subjecting them to the same public records framework as other public officials. It would add two new exemptions to protect sensitive constituent communications and developing policy positions, in recognition of legislators’ unique role as representatives and policymakers. The ballot question’s language is not new: it is drawn directly from a bill filed in the Legislature, which Act on Mass has pushed for years as part of the Sunlight Agenda.
In summary, here are a few reasons to vote Yes on 1:
- Vote YES on Question 1 to restore the public’s Right to Know.
- Vote YES on Question 1 to bring Massachusetts’ state government in line with other states.
- Vote YES on Question 1 to ensure that Legislators and the Governor are held to the same standards as elected officials in your town or city.
Subjecting the Legislature and governor’s office would also restore a crucial tool to some of the most important agents of public accountability we have in a democracy: our press. FOIA and public records requests are an essential tool for quality journalism. Just in recent months, journalists in our state have used records requests to investigate ICE mistreatment of detainees in the Plymouth County Jail, state neglect in oversight of nursing homes (Globe Spotlight team!), and police misconduct in Western Mass.
The current exemptions for the Legislature and Governor mean that our political press is limited in the investigations they can undertake and the knowledge they can make available to the public. Early in my career, I was interviewed by a journalist who had moved to Massachusetts from Florida. She described her shock at how much harder it was to do political journalism in Massachusetts, where so much of our government is exempted from public records law. As I’ve said before, I don’t think we should settle for being beaten by Florida when it comes to our government.
- Vote YES on Question 1 to empower our local press to investigate and keep the public informed.
Governor Healey has said that she would vote “yes” and that her office would comply. As far as we know, the only opponents of Question 1 seem to be legislators themselves. The Massachusetts Senate tried to get the Supreme Judicial Court to signal that the question was unconstitutional before it even made the ballot (the same backdoor tact that defeated stipend reform), but justices declined. We are confident that, with the exemptions included, the ballot question is on strong constitutional ground.
As you may remember, legislators later tried another sketchy tactic: waiting until the end of session to pass their own extremely limited, alternative “legislative records” bills. These bills are not a meaningful alternative to Question 1 for a few reasons. They would create a new records regime solely for the Legislature, with appeals processed in-house. Instead of a presumption that records are public, they would allow records requests only for a limited list of named document types, almost all of which are already public. The Senate version, if finalized, would severely limit judicial review. As we wrote in July, “This piecemeal approach to legislative records would keep the ‘public’ out of ‘public records.” Still, language in these bills means that their passage into law could weaken or even nullify the impact of the ballot question.
The House and Senate passed different versions of this legislation, which means that they are currently in conference committee negotiations to produce a finalized bill. Under new legislative rules, legislators have until January to release legislation from conference committee for a final vote. We anticipate that they will wait until after the November election, in order to see the result of the ballot measure.
That’s another reason to vote YES on 1 and to tell your friends and neighbors to do so too. Legislative leaders may have felt comfortable interfering with the ballot question when few members of the public were paying attention. After November, if the measure passes, everyone who voted will have a vested interest in seeing the public records law applied. The higher margin of support we can get, the harder time they will have getting their members on board with the final attempt to water it down.
It’s a shame that we have to even be thinking this way, in a state where the citizens have a co-equal lawmaking power through the ballot. But as we saw with the response to the legislative audit, legislative leaders are extremely resistant to reforms that increase public oversight of their activities. The greater response we can get, the greater our leverage will be if they try to repeat those tactics.
- Vote YES on Question 1 for a strong public records law and a safeguard against legislative interference.
Finally, we did want to address one misconception regarding Question 1. As you may have seen in our blog post opposing Question 3, we have been critical of the private equity money bankrolling the Top 2 Primary question. Question 3’s eye-popping six-figure donations were even examined by the Boston Globe this week: “Why is the investment world financing a Mass. ballot question to eliminate partisan primaries?” (paywall).
The Coalition for Healthy Democracy (CHD) is the ballot committee behind Question 3. However, CHD is also registered as a supporting organization for Question 1. This has led to some misleading reporting (example), where it appears that Question 1 is also flush with $5.4 million in private equity money from CHD. Some people have (reasonably) asked me: how can you criticize private equity funding of Question 3, but not Question 1?
Here’s what happened: the Coalition for Healthy Democracy actually initially filed the public records law language, based on the legislative bill we discussed above. That is why they are registered as a supporter for campaign finance purposes. However, CHD gave up leadership of the question in the fall of 2025 in order to focus on the Top 2 Primary issue. For the last year, Question 1 has been led by Auditor DiZoglio, with help from organizations like (you guessed it) Act on Mass. The Auditor’s ballot committee, the Committee for Transparency and Democracy, ultimately organized for the signatures that made sure Question 1 made the ballot; their largest donation is $150,000 from DiZoglio’s campaign account.
Following the confusion, CHD confirmed to reporters that their focus is on Question 3. CHD’s website is now titled “Yes on 3 MA” and does not mention Question 1. Meanwhile, many of the progressive groups supporting Question 1, such as Progressive Mass, Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts, unions, etc., also share our stance of opposing Question 3. We appreciate CHD’s original work on public records reform and our points of agreement, but can confirm that the piles of private equity funding are pushing Question 3—not Question 1. Please share this clarification if you encounter confusion among people who are (rightfully) concerned about private equity’s influence in politics.
Luckily, we don’t need millions of dollars to sell Question 1 to the public: it is a simple, common sense reform that would strengthen our democracy and boost public oversight of government. Please make sure you are telling your friends and neighbors to vote YES on Question 1 for the reasons listed above. Our Take Action section has a link to request a yard sign. You can also help by sharing this blog post and urging people in your life to vote YES.