Massachusetts Question 3 Doesn’t Guarantee More Choices

Massachusetts ranks second to last in the country for competitive state legislative elections. This November, three out of five state legislative races have only one candidate on the ballot, leaving voters with little choice. In a state dominated by one party, a “top-two” system would more likely remove the minority party from the November ballot than create real competition.

Question 3 on the November ballot in the Bay State claims to fix this by replacing party primaries with a single all-party primary in which the top two vote-getters advance to November regardless of party. The problem? This would change how candidates make it to the general election, but it does not necessarily give voters more choices. It might sound like more competition on paper. Yet the real question is: What happens when November comes and voters have fewer choices?

With candidates running unopposed, Massachusetts shows that it has a real competition problem. In less than two weeks, voters will decide whether changing the state’s primary election system is the answer.

First, the state’s voter registration displays why that concern matters. As of February 2024, the secretary of the commonwealth reported that 26.97% of registered voters were Democrats, 8.38% were Republicans and 63.61% were unenrolled. Under the current system, a Republican nominee chosen by Republican primary voters is guaranteed a spot on the November ballot. Under Question 3, that candidate would need to finish in the top two among all voters in a single primary. In districts where two Democrats split the larger share of the vote, the Republican can easily finish third — and be eliminated.

Mass Legal Resources notes that same-party general elections are routine in states using top-two primaries. California shows how this plays out. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, the state has had at least 18 same-party races for the legislature or Congress in every fall election since adopting the top-two system. Some statewide races, including the 2016 and 2018 U.S. Senate contests, featured two Democrats. No statewide race has ever featured two Republicans. Top-two tends to entrench the dominant party rather than challenge it.

The system also invites manipulation. CalMatters reported that in 2018, then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom tacitly steered Republican voters toward Republican John Cox, whom he saw as a weaker opponent than fellow Democrat Antonio Villaraigosa. In 2024, Adam Schiff’s campaign spent millions boosting Republican Steve Garvey to push fellow Democrat Katie Porter out of the top two. In both cases, the dominant party helped choose its opponent. The outlet also concluded that the top-two primary has mostly failed to push California candidates to appeal across party lines.

Massachusetts’ Question 3 would eliminate separate party primaries, which would change how nominees reach the November ballot. Under the measure, “Endorsed by the [party]” can appear next to a candidate’s name only if the party committee and the candidate jointly request it. Party members would no longer choose their preferred party’s nominee for the election.

The concerns do not stop with party nominations. Campaign cash also plays a role. The committee backing Question 3 has spent $4 million backing this measure. A top-two primary forces every candidate to compete for the entire electorate before November, which means spending more earlier. That favors well-funded candidates over grassroots challengers.

For candidates without wealthy donors, reaching voters is already difficult. Having to spend money earlier in the election could make it much harder to compete. MassGOP Chairwoman Amy Carnevale said the initiative would erode parties’ ability to select their own nominees, marginalize smaller parties, amplify the role of big money and disadvantage grassroots efforts. For conservatives in Massachusetts, who already have fewer resources than the governing party, that is a serious concern.

It is rare for the two parties to agree on anything in Massachusetts, but both the state Democratic Party and the state Republican Party oppose Question 3. Progressive groups and several major unions are also against it. They agree for good reason — the answer to one-party dominance is more candidates, stronger party-building and real choices in November, not a system that can remove the opposition from the ballot entirely. Massachusetts needs two political parties that can choose their own nominees and give every voter options.

Question 3 would make that harder, and voters would be the ones paying the price. Vote no.