All questions / Updates

Updates to this site

What's changed since this site went up, and when, so corrections and additions aren't invisible.

September 27, 2026

Turned Question 9's answer on what a NO vote repeals into an actual list. It had been broken into sentences on September 19 but was still one long paragraph covering eleven provisions. Same content, one line per change. Affects Question 9
Split one of Question 6's common questions in two. It answered what the money can be spent on and who decides in a single long paragraph. Those are now separate answers, and the six uses the law allows are listed one per line. Nothing in them changed. Affects Question 6
Moved the Last verified date on Questions 3, 4 and 6 to September 20. Each gained an argument or a sourced figure that day (logged below), and the date is supposed to move whenever a question's content changes. Affects Question 3, Question 4, Question 6

September 20, 2026

Corrected the number of states with same-day registration on Question 4. The page said 21 states plus Washington, D.C. It now says 23, which is the count the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts uses, and says so, because the League is the supporter cited in that sentence and its ballot question page is linked from every question page here. The count is not a settled number: the National Conference of State Legislatures counts 24 states plus D.C., but its list includes Massachusetts, which allows registration during early voting only up to the existing 10-day deadline and is what Question 4 would change. Naming whose count it is seemed better than picking a side. Affects Question 4
Named the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts on Question 4, where the page had said only "the League of Women Voters." A reader pointed out that positions on statewide questions come from the state League, not the national organization or a local one, and that someone searching lwv.org for the source would not find it. The state League's ballot question page was already linked in Other places to look on every question page. Affects Question 4
Corrected the How to vote page on voter registration. It said the October 24 deadline has no grace period. That holds for almost everyone, but a voter naturalized after October 24 can register in person at their local election office until 4 p.m. on November 2, the day before the election, with proof that the naturalization ceremony took place after the deadline. Added in both languages. Every other date on the page was rechecked against the Secretary of the Commonwealth and is correct.
Added a How to vote in Massachusetts page, in English and Spanish. It has every deadline for the November 3 election in one place: registration by October 24, early voting October 17 to 30, the mail ballot application deadline of October 27, the three-day postmark grace period for mailed ballots, polling hours, when identification is required, and what help you can ask for at the polls. Every date is sourced to the Secretary of the Commonwealth or to statute.
Added the substitution argument to Question 6. A reader pointed out that dedicating this revenue does not by itself raise conservation spending, since the Legislature could credit the fund and trim the general revenue it already sends to conservation. Reading the filed petition turned up a partial guardrail: it directs the board to write guidelines preventing expenditures from supplanting bond cap spending on existing capital programs, but nothing requires operating appropriations to be maintained. Both are now on the page. Affects Question 6
Added vote splitting to Question 3. The page covered the cost and access objection and mentioned ranked-choice voting, but not the most common argument against a top-two primary: that one party's vote can divide among several candidates while another party's consolidates. The new answer uses California's 31st congressional district in 2012, where four Democrats split the vote and two Republicans took both general election slots in a district Obama had carried 58 to 42. Affects Question 3
Corrected the known limits list on the How it's made page, in both languages. It still said the About and Updates pages were English only, which stopped being true when the Spanish versions of both went up.
Restored a missing paragraph on the Spanish Question 6 page. The English against section noted that every seat on the 15-member spending board sits in the governor's orbit; the Spanish version had never carried it. Affects Question 6

September 19, 2026

Rewrote Question 1's common questions. The answer about what counts as “policy development” now quotes the petition's actual wording instead of saying the phrase isn't defined, and drops an unsourced reference to what legislative leaders had hinted. The answer about enforcement now says what actually happens if a records request is ignored: 10 business days to respond, then an appeal to the Supervisor of Records, then superior court. Affects Question 1
Corrected Question 3's summary. It described the measure as a bigger change than “more voter choice” suggests and led with the opposition. That's an argument, not a description, and it was the one sentence that appears on the homepage, in search results and at the top of the page. It now says what the measure would do — one primary, top two advance — and names both sides' framing. Affects Question 3
Added the other half of the research on Question 7. The site said roughly 200,000 parcels would newly qualify and stopped there. That figure comes from the Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis, which also estimates 350 to 1,200 additional homes a year and calls the effect real but limited. Quoting only the large number overstated what the measure would do. Affects Question 7
Made Question 9's list of what a NO vote repeals readable. It was accurate but delivered as a single 200-word sentence covering eleven provisions. Same content, broken up. Affects Question 9
Removed notes about this site's own edits from four answers (Questions 3, 4, 5 and 7). Corrections belong on this page, not inside an answer a voter is reading to understand a question. Affects Question 3, Question 4, Question 5, Question 7
Cut three sentences where the site told you what to conclude rather than letting the facts do it — on Questions 1, 3 and 6. The facts underneath are unchanged. Affects Question 1, Question 3, Question 6
Corrected the Spanish summary of Question 5. It said the measure would make taxpayer rebates larger and more frequent. The English correctly calls that supporters' prediction rather than a guaranteed outcome; the Spanish now does too. Affects Question 5
Fixed two Spanish consistency problems: one Question 4 answer switched from tú to usted mid-answer, and the Secretary of the Commonwealth was named two different ways. Affects Question 4
Sourced Question 8's claim that home growing becomes illegal again, which previously appeared in the short summary without support anywhere on the page. The right to grow at home is in Chapter 94G, which this measure repeals outright; the cultivation language that survives in the petition belongs to the medical program. There's a new common question explaining it, including the part of the petition that argues the other way. Affects Question 8
Corrected Question 8: the site said the measure would cap medical marijuana potency at 30% THC for flower, 60% for concentrates and 5mg per serving. Those caps are in Version A of the petition (25-09), which was certified but did not advance to the ballot. The measure on the ballot is Version B (25-10) and contains no potency limits at all. The answer says so now rather than just dropping the claim, because the potency-cap version has been circulating and patients have been asking about it. Affects Question 8
Removed a claim from Questions 1 and 3 that $1 million of the largest committee's money was set aside for TV ads not yet on air. The committee total is confirmed against OCPF; the ad reservation is not, and “not yet on air” stops being true the moment the ads run. The funding figures on those pages are unchanged. Affects Question 1, Question 3
Every question page now shows its own “Updated” date beside its “Last verified” date, so you can see when the page you're reading last changed. Each entry on this page names the questions it changed, so a correction can be followed to the page it affected. All nine “Last verified” dates are now September 19, because all nine were re-read against their filed petitions and both official booklets on the 18th and 19th — previously only Question 6 carried a current date.
Every question's funding section now links to OCPF's own ballot-question filings, so you can check the numbers rather than take them from this site. The note also explains why OCPF's summary page shows smaller per-question totals: it reports money spent rather than raised, and splits a committee that works on two questions evenly between them.
Dropped the second date from question pages. They were showing both a “Last verified” and an “Updated” date, which was two dates for nearly the same thing. “Last verified” stays, and it moves whenever a question's content changes.
Every committee named in a funding section now links to its own filings page at OCPF, so each figure can be checked at the source. All 20 registered ballot-question committees are listed, including several with almost no money — leaving those out would have made the committee counts here disagree with OCPF's.
Corrected Question 1: three committees are registered in support, not two. The third has reported about three dollars in spending, but the count was wrong. Affects Question 1
Named the main committee behind Question 4, YES on Election Day Voter Registration. The site gave its $160,000 figure without saying whose it was, while naming the smaller second committee. Affects Question 4
This page now exists in Spanish, at /es/updates/, with all 45 entries translated. Both How it's made pages promise that corrections are logged publicly, and until now that promise pointed a Spanish reader at an English page. The Spanish homepage and footer link to it, and the build fails if the two logs ever fall out of step.

September 18, 2026

Corrected Question 1: the public records exemption has three carve-outs, not two. The site previously described only two. Affects Question 1
Corrected Question 6: spending from the conservation fund still needs the Legislature's approval each year. Money flowing into the fund is automatic, but the earlier wording implied the fund was fully outside the Legislature's control, which isn't accurate. Affects Question 6
Added the felony penalty for a false same-day registration statement to Question 4's explanation. That's the site's main answer to the fraud concern that measure usually raises, previously only in the FAQ. Affects Question 4
Added a "Common questions" section to every question page, for detail that's useful but shouldn't be forced into the main explanation.
Added links to the actual certified petition text for each question (official filings with the Attorney General's office), so you can check the source document yourself.
Clarity edits to Questions 2 and 3's summaries. Affects Question 2, Question 3
Rewrote the quiz's nine statement pairs. Each pair used to have one side written as a principle and the other as a caveat, and which side got the stronger framing flipped from question to question, which skewed answers regardless of which side a reader actually agreed with. Both statements in every pair now assert a value or a consequence, in the same grammatical shape, at similar length.
Added a real third choice, "No strong view," to every quiz question. Choosing it now records your vote as "still deciding," the same as picking it on a question page, so it shows correctly on your cheat sheet and your downloaded ballot card instead of being left as a stale yes or no from an earlier answer.
Corrected Question 6: one of the Common questions said the tax falls on golf equipment. It falls on golf courses. The summary and the YES explanation had it right and the FAQ didn't. Checked against the filed petition and the state's official summary, which also word it as the sale and use of sporting goods and recreational vehicles, and the use of golf courses. The page says that now. Affects Question 6
Corrected Question 7 in both languages: the state's official summary says these homes would still be subject to reasonable local regulation of certain aspects, and this site left that out. Without it the override reads more absolute than it is, which made the opposition's objection sound stronger than the official summary supports. Affects Question 7
Corrected the Spanish Question 1 page, which still said the public records exemption has two carve-outs. It has three. The English page was fixed earlier the same day and the Spanish one was missed. Affects Question 1
The Spanish question pages now match the English ones section for section: the short YES and NO answers at the top, the Common questions, the link to the certified petition text, and the Other places to look list. Those were all English-only before.
Added a Spanish version of the How it's made page, including the section on where AI fits. A reader who only reads Spanish shouldn't have to switch languages to find out how the site is put together.
Changed Spanish wording to match the state's own Spanish voter guide, so the two use the same words for the same things: the public defenders agency is the CSDP, registering to vote is inscripción, the Chapter 62F taxpayer refund is a devolución, and untraceable firearms are armas fantasma.
Fixed the ballot card image, which printed maballotguide.com/quiz at the bottom no matter where the card was made, including cards made from the cheat sheet and the one shown on the homepage.
The ballot card now speaks Spanish. Until today a Spanish reader could work through all nine Spanish question pages, save their card, and get HERE'S HOW / YES / NO / DECIDING and “4 of 9 decided” back in English — on the one thing from this site you'd actually send to family.
Added a Spanish cheat sheet. Every Spanish page linked to the English one, so the route a Spanish reader took to get their card ended on an English page. It's at /es/cheat-sheet/ now, and the card it produces is in Spanish.
The Spanish homepage got the layout the English one has had since September 18: a live ballot card showing your own answers, and a clearer starting point.
Corrected the How it's made page in both languages. Its list of known limits said the cheat sheet was English only, which stopped being true when the Spanish one shipped today.
The link to each question's filed petition is easier to find. It used to sit underneath the share image; it's now above it, and marked as a source rather than as another button.
Corrected Question 9: the FAQ said a NO vote “repeals only the five things Chapter 135 added in 2024.” That understated it. The state's official summary describes a substantially longer list — including the minimum age of 21 for semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, the redefinition of “machine gun” to cover bump stocks and Glock switches, the prohibition on firearms in government buildings, polling locations and schools, vehicle transport rules, the public firearm-data dashboard, and two study commissions. The word “only” is gone and the full list is now on the page. Affects Question 9
Added Question 4's effective date, which was missing everywhere on the page: the measure takes effect January 1, 2028. A YES vote this November would not let anyone register at the polls on November 3, 2026. It's now in the summary, the YES explanation, the short ballot-card line, and a new Common question. Affects Question 4
Added Question 4's provisional-ballot fallback. Someone without proof of residency could cast a provisional ballot, counted if they return with the required information before polls close (municipal), within two days (state primary), or within six days (state election). The page had described proof of residency as a hard requirement. Affects Question 4
Corrected Question 5's description of the new cap. The site said the cap would grow from the prior year's actual collections and stopped there, which reads as a freeze. The official summary adds that it grows by the average growth of Massachusetts wages and salaries over the most recent three years. That factor, and the July 1, 2027 effective date, are now on the page. Affects Question 5
Added Question 3's third-party provision: the measure would grant official political party status to any group whose candidates for a statewide office win at least 3% of the ballots cast in the state primary. It's in the state's official summary and was missing here. Affects Question 3
Rechecked every funding figure on the site against OCPF and corrected most of them. The old numbers came from a single reporting period rather than each committee's total receipts, which understated several questions badly: Question 7 read $154,000 against an actual $1.71 million, Question 2 read $226,000 against $1.05 million, Question 6 read $1.3 million against $2.64 million, and Question 4 read $80,000 against $160,000. Questions 1, 8 and the Question 5 in-kind totals were close to right. Every question's funding text now reports total receipts since each committee organized, with in-kind support noted separately. Affects Question 1, Question 2, Question 3, Question 4, Question 5, Question 6, Question 7, Question 8, Question 9
Named the committees behind each side, including four that had not been on the site: Abundant Housing Legalize Starter Homes (Question 7), Vote YES on 4 Election Day Registration (Question 4), Committee for Keep Cannabis Legal (Question 8), and Voter Rights MA's reported total on Question 3. Affects Question 3, Question 4, Question 7, Question 8
Five questions — 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 — still have no committee registered in opposition. That was true before and it's still true; only the dollar figures were wrong.