|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: Recreational cannabis to stay legal; public records law to expand in Mass., AP calls Craig Lemoult and Sam Turken WGBH Wednesday 04 Nov 2026 It looks like Massachusetts voters have decided not to give up their legal use of joints, vapes, gummies and other cannabis products. The Associated Press projected that the “no” votes would prevail on Question 8, which would have repealed recreational cannabis after 10 years. Question 8 would have reversed the decision that voters made in a ballot question a decade ago and dismantled the recreational cannabis industry that’s developed since then. Supporters of the cannabis industry 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 roughly $2 billion in tax revenue since legalization. They also argued that the ballot question would have eliminated a regulated industry that tests the safety of cannabis products, and replaced it with an illegal and more dangerous underground market. ‘Yes’ on 9: Gun restrictions stay in place While the Associated Press had not projected the results of Ballot Question 9 as of 12:13 a.m., the campaign fighting to keep Massachusetts gun control legislation from being repealed is declaring victory. Question 9 was a referendum on gun control legislation the state passed two years ago. A “no” vote would have repealed the law. As of just after midnight, with 49% of the votes counted, the “Yes” side was winning with 69% of the votes, according to AP. The state law included a range of regulations, including penalties related to guns that are 3-D printed or built from kits, making them difficult to trace because of a lack of serial numbers. The law also banned modifications that turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic ones, and strengthened licensing laws. “This victory belongs to the people of Massachusetts, who through their votes said a resounding yes to protecting this legislation and keeping our communities safe from gun violence,” said Ruth Zakarin, Chair of Yes on 9 for a Safe Massachusetts. “This campaign showed what is possible when people unite around a shared commitment to safety, and we look forward to carrying this momentum forward until everyone in Massachusetts can live free from the fear of gun violence.” ‘Yes’ on 1: More public records access The Associated Press is projecting that the state ballot question expanding public records will pass, too. Massachusetts is the only state in the country where all three branches of government are exempt from having to share information about communications, reports and other public records. Voters made clear they want that to change. The Associated Press announced late Tuesday night that the ballot question will pass with more than 80% of the vote, as of 12:14 a.m. Wednesday morning. The measure brings the governor’s office and state Legislature under the same public records law as state agencies and city and town governments. Supporters of Question 1, including State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, have said the goal of the measure is simple: ensure more transparency on Beacon Hill. According to an analysis from a Tufts University thinktank, the ballot measure could lead to more administrative information about contracts with vendors, settlements with employees and spending records. The question carved out particular exceptions so that some records would stay private, including constituents’ communications with their lawmakers and lawmakers’ communications where they’re developing their policy stances. As it became clear Tuesday night that voters overwhelmingly supported the ballot measure, DiZoglio celebrated. “It’s a huge, huge win for Massachusetts,” she told GBH News. “Everybody wants transparency and accountability from their elected officials.” DiZoglio is currently locked in a dispute with Beacon Hill leaders over whether she can audit the state Legislature — a power she stresses voters gave her when they approved Question 1 in 2024. The future of this year’s Question 1 is also uncertain despite voters’ support for it. State lawmakers have said they oppose it because it could chill “open communications.” Beacon Hill leaders are also considering alternate legislation to the ballot question in the form of a more narrow proposal to make public records available. ‘Yes’ on 3 supporters concede defeat The campaign supporting Question 3, which would have fundamentally changed the way Massachusetts holds its elections, has conceded that it lost, acknowledging that voters chose not to adopt an all-party primary system. While the Associated Press had not called the race as of 11:45 p.m., with 46% of the votes counted, 61% voted “No” compared to just 39% who voted “Yes.” “The people of Massachusetts want real choices in November and elected officials who have to work to earn all of our votes. That frustration doesn’t go away tonight,” the Yes on 3 campaign said in a written statement, in which it thanked supporters. “On this question and others, every voter in Massachusetts got a real choice and a real contest. That’s how every election should feel. We’ll keep working until it does.” Question 3 would have ended party-based primaries in Massachusetts, putting all candidates into one big so-called “jungle primary,” and sending the top two vote getters to face off in the general election, regardless of party. Jordan Berg Powers, the chair of the No on 3 campaign, celebrated the victory in a call with GBH News. “We’re really excited for Massachusetts voters,” Berg Powers said. “We thank them for preserving our democracy, and leaving the power in the hands of us, the people. And mostly I’m excited because we were really just a bunch of groups and organizations who did not have money behind it. Our campaign is really about grassroots power from its core.” Opponents argued that only the most well-funded candidates would be likely to make it to the general election in 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 big-money interests. ‘Yes’ on 6 supporters declare victory for new nature fund Supporters of Ballot Question 6, which would divert some state sales tax into a fund for nature conservation and recreation, are declaring victory. Question 6 would take a share of taxes on recreation gear and spending at golf courses would be put into a new trust called the “Nature for All Fund.” “This is a massive message to the legislature that this is an overwhelmingly popular thing to their constituents, no matter where they live across the commonwealth,” David O’Neill, president and CEO of Mass Audubon, told GBH News. “And we think that’s going to be an important message to share with the legislature as we secure the resources in the dedicated fund on an annual basis.” The “Nature For All Fund” is not a new tax. It’s really a suggestion that the Legislature take existing tax money and spend it on something specific. “We’re going to fight really hard to work with our partners in the Legislature to secure legislation and appropriations to create and enforce this dedicated funding source year in and year out,” O’Neill said. The Associated Press had not yet called the race as of 1:00 a.m. Wednesday morning. With roughly 56% of the vote counted, the “yes” campaign was leading with more than 60% of the vote. ‘Yes’ on 2 wins, AP projects; public defenders can soon unionize Massachusetts voters are on board with the state’s public defenders forming a union, the Associated Press projects. As of early Wednesday morning, more than 60% of voters had backed Question 2, per AP tallies. The measure would allow about 800 public defenders and other employees that are part of the Committee for Public Counsel Services to collectively bargain for a contract. A technicality in state law has meant that, unlike most state employees, public defenders don’t have a legal right to unionize. Workers and union representatives from SEIU Local 888 have been trying to push state lawmakers to pass a law allowing them to unionize for six legislative cycles, but those efforts have not been successful. Supporters of Question 2 have argued that the state has struggled to recruit and retain public defenders. The hope is that allowing them to unionize could help ensure better working conditions and sway them to stay in their jobs longer. https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2026-11-03/recreational-cannabis-to-stay-legal-in-mass-ap-calls
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!