Op-Ed: “An Abundance of Questions Coming to the November Ballot”

Jonathan Cohn, “An Abundance of Questions Coming to the November Ballot,” Fenway News, June 2026.

With the onset of spring weather in May came a biennial Massachusetts tradition: signature collectors outside the grocery store and at local events.

That’s because as soon as signature collection wrapped up for candidates running for office this year, it started up again for ballot questions. And we have a lot of them.

Last fall was only Round One for these questions. A record-breaking 11 ballot questions reached the necessary 74,574 certified signatures needed to advance. They began the new year as bills filed with the Legislature.

A special committee in the Legislature held hearings on all 11 of those questions, listening to proponents, opponents, nonpartisan experts, and members of the public. They decided not to take action on any of them. That means that the campaigns need to collect another 12,429 signatures between early May and mid-June, a much tighter window than Round One, but a lower threshold.

Unfortunately, one of the original 11 is no longer moving forward: the ballot initiative taking on the legislature’s hierarchical pay structure. Currently, legislators can more than double their pay through stipends attached to various leadership posts. Critics rightly deride these stipends as “loyalty pay,” given how they make their recipients indebted to the House and Senate leaders who dole them out. The State Senate, a bitter foe of the question, sought an advisory opinion from the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) on the question’s constitutionality, and SJC sided with them. The question’s backers are planning to regroup and try again next year.

So what are the remaining 10 questions you might see on clipboards in the coming weeks?

  • Rent stabilization, i.e., limiting how much rent can increase each year to 5% or inflation (whichever is lower), with tailored exemptions for small landlords and new construction
  • Limiting minimum lot sizes in order to eliminate zoning obstacles to the construction of starter homes in the suburbs
  • Expanding the public records law to the Governor and Legislature (We’re the only state where the Governor and Legislature claim full exemption)
  • Election Day Registration, i.e., enabling eligible voters to register to vote or update their registration at the polls (as New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and Connecticut already allow). Our early September primaries put the need in stark relief.
  • Replacing party primaries with all-party runoff elections like in California, a system Californians are thinking twice about amidst their chaotic gubernatorial election
  • Reducing the state income tax from 5% to 4%, which would lead to a $5 billion cut to the state budget on top of looming cuts to health care and food assistance and disproportionately benefit the top 1%
  • Tightening the revenue cap created by a 1986 ballot question, making it harder for the state to invest
  • Enabling public defenders at the Committee for Public Counsel Service to form a union
  • Recriminalizing recreational marijuana
  • Dedicating funds from the existing state sales tax on sporting goods to a fund for protecting and conserving water and nature

Sound like a lot of ballot questions to keep track of? That’s not all of them.

The one question already guaranteed to be on the ballot is a referendum on the guns safety omnibus bill passed overwhelmingly by the Legislature in 2024. The bill modernized Massachusetts’ existing firearms laws to address issues such as untraceable “ghost guns,” strengthened the state’s “Red Flag Law,” protected safety in public spaces, and increased violence prevention programming. The Gun Owners Action League collected signatures to try to repeal it. With ballot questions, always remember to pay attention what the yes means and what the no means: it’s yes to keep the law and no to repeal it.

The Legislature can take action until June 30 (the date signatures are due to the Secretary of the State) on any of the 10 other questions. With a question like Election Day Registration, which the State Senate has passed multiple times over the years, doing so seems like a no-brainer.

But barring a quicker legislature or a lot of illegible signatures, we are destined to a historically long ballot this November. Make sure to do your homework before heading into the polls: you won’t want to be taken by surprise by a never-ending list of questions when there is already a long list of offices on the ballot.

MA Could Have up to 11 Ballot Questions This Year, But This One Is Already on the Ballot.

You’ve probably seen signature collectors out in force for the *10* campaigns currently collecting to get questions on the November ballot.

But what you need to remember is that there are *11* potential questions, as one question is already guaranteed a spot on the ballot.

That’s because the gun lobby in the state collected signatures for a referendum on MA’s 2024 gun safety omnibus bill. It’s critical to remember as well that you vote YES to keep the law.

But what’s in the bill anyway? And why is this so important? Join us on Monday, June 15, at 7 pm to learn more about the Vote Yes for a Safe MA campaign and how to get involved.

RSVP Here

Rent Control and Same Day Registration Are in the Mass Dems Platform. Beacon Hill Should Pass Them.

It’s ballot question signature collection season. When going to the grocery store or the farmer’s market, you may have started seeing people collecting for various questions. Maybe you are even doing it yourself. We’re on track for a record number of ballot questions this fall.

But there’s something Beacon Hill could do to make that ballot more manageable: pass policies already in the Massachusetts Democratic Party platform.

The Massachusetts Democratic Party platform supports rent control and supports Same Day Registration. It recognizes that curbing the growth of rent is a critical tool to fight displacement, and it recognizes that voters should be able to register to vote or update their registration at the polls (almost all of our neighboring states already allow it).

So, as Massachusetts Democrats get ready for their annual party convention in Worcester this weekend, it’s a good time to write to your Democratic state legislators and tell them: let’s make our platform mean something.

Already emailed your legislators recently? Why not try calling for follow-up?

My Top Five Favorite Songs about Data Privacy

Today, technology has far outpaced privacy law. Data brokers and Big Tech are free to do almost anything they want with our personal information, including selling our cellphone location data on the open market.

That’s why we have been working with groups from across the state to push for stronger data privacy protections.

When I was thinking recently about this push for data privacy at the State House, I got to thinking about a really important question: What are the best songs about data privacy?

So I put together my top five favorite songs about privacy and surveillance (🥁🥁):

5. “Secret Agent Man” by Johnny Rivers

4. “Our Lips Are Sealed” by The Go-Go’s

3. “Somebody’s Watching Me” by Rockwell

2. “Every Breath You Take” by The Police

1. The sweet sound of people calling their legislators to demand action on data privacy (It’s music to my ears)

That’s right: nothing beats the sound of people putting pressure on their elected officials to take overdue action.

Can you call or email your state rep today in support of taking action to protect data privacy?

Here’s what you need to know:

  • The MA Senate passed a bill to ban the sale of sensitive data (like location data) and curtail what companies can collect back in September.
  • The MA House’s Advanced IT Committee advanced a bill (H.4746) in November.
  • The clock is ticking, and we need the House to bring it up for a vote.

And here’s what you can do:

In solidarity,
Jonathan Cohn
Policy Director
Progressive Massachusetts

PS: When you call or email about data privacy, it can’t hurt to add a note about why the House should also back down from its push for online age verification policies that are filled with privacy landmines.

50+ human rights groups sign letter opposing MA “age verification” bills, hold press conference at State House with Rep Mike Connolly

BOSTON, MA—A growing coalition of human rights, LGBTQ+, civil liberties, racial justice, and environmental advocacy groups will release a letter signed by more than 50 organizations on Wednesday, May 13th, expressing grave concern about dangerous and unconstitutional online ID check bills proposed by the Massachusetts House and Governor Maura Healey.

Leaders from organizations that signed the letter will hold a press conference in front of the State House at 10am on Wednesday, May 13th, urging the Governor and the House to work with experts and impacted communities to make significant changes to the legislation.

Signers of the letter, led by Fight for the Future, include the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, Sierra Club of MA, Partners in Sex Education, United American Indians of New England (UAINE), The Coalition for Student Mental Health, Progressive Massachusetts, Muslim Justice League, Mass 50501, Act On Mass, and dozens more. 

See a preview of the letter and current list of signers here: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2026-05-11-new-letter-massachusetts-social-media-ban-will-help-trump-and-will-not-keep-kids-safe-from-big-tech/

Rep. Mike Connolly, who voted against the House bill H.5366, will join advocates for the press conference. Advocates will hold signs, make short remarks, and take questions from the press before going into the State House to deliver the letter to House and Senate leadership as well as the Governor’s office. 

Fight for the Future has released a working draft proposal of an alternative model bill that would address Big Tech harms without undermining privacy or human rights. The group has met with Governor Healey and the Attorney General’s office after holding a protest outside the governor’s broadcast on WGBH last week. Fight for the Future director Evan Greer and Nathalie Marachél of Northeastern University penned an op-ed for the Boston Globe explaining the privacy, civil liberties, and free expression problems with the current legislation. 

Contact: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org or 978-852-6457, to RSVP for the press conference or arrange a separate interview. We will have photos and video available for press later in the day.

Members of the coalition have offered the following statements to press:

“Health education is built on the principle that young people are best protected not by cutting them off from information but by giving them the tools they need to navigate a complex world. We are especially concerned about LGBTQ+ teens, young people in abusive homes, and adolescents in mental health crises who rely on online communities for support they may not find anywhere else. This bill would put those young people at greater risk, not less. A real legislative response should focus on privacy protections and algorithmic accountability, not surveillance and restricted access to information. We urge Massachusetts lawmakers to scrap H. 5349 and pursue policy that is genuinely centered on the wellbeing of young people.” -Megara Bell, Director of Partners in Sex Education

“Mass 50501 stands firmly against handing our personal data to large tech companies — especially when they are so willing to share that data with our federal authoritarian government. We also stand with marginalized youth who often feel isolated until finding their communities online. It is true that social media can do harm, especially to the mental health of children. However, the way this bill is written will disproportionately affect LGBTQIA+, disabled and neurodivergent youth, while opening the door to surveillance overreach for all citizens of Massachusetts by for-profit tech companies. The problem is real, this solution is reckless, invasive, and puts the very people it claims to protect at greater risk.” – Rebecca Winter (she/her), Executive Director, Mass 50501

“The Intersex community is still so young that we don’t have accessible resources; and the sex and gender resources that do exist don’t know how to support us. Intersex youth and adults alike are totally dependent on social media for peer support, patient centered medical support and the lived experiences of our elders.” -Esther Morris Leidolf, President and Founder of MRKH Intersex

Online verification policies have proven to be a data privacy nightmare. Rather than reining in Big Tech, as legislators have portrayed the bill as doing, it expands new frontiers for them to profit from our data and puts marginalized communities at risk.” -Jonathan Cohn, Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts 

“We share the concern about young people’s wellbeing online, but this bill raises serious questions that lawmakers haven’t answered. Age verification means collecting government IDs and face scans — data that can be hacked, sold, or misused. The solution to protecting young people is not putting their private information at greater risk. It’s ensuring they have access to comprehensive sex education that builds the critical thinking and media literacy skills they need to navigate the digital world safely.” – Callie Simon (she/her), Executive Director, SIECUS

“As an organization grounded in the Unitarian Universalist faith, we oppose H.5366 as this bill directly threatens many of our UU principles including; ‘justice, equity, and compassion in human relations.’ This bill endangers the safety of our children and youth, puts them at risk, robs them of their right not to be surveilled, and in this way denies them the justice, equity, and compassion to live free from surveillance and censorship.” –Rev. Jo Murphy, UU Mass Action

“This House bill is in effect an ID check for everyone to go online. Digital Fourth strongly opposes legal mandates for technological verification of people’s ages online. This bill won’t protect kids from the negative consequences of Big Tech; instead, they will kill the non-Big Tech Internet, by imposing expensive burdens on volunteers who operate community forums, listservs and blogs. The House should focus on proven, non-corporate-sponsored solutions, like education on online harms and universal user protections that don’t target or disempower youth, and that therefore don’t require invasive online ID checks.” –Alex Marthews, Co-Chair, Digital Fourth

“After witnessing the current horrors of the Trump administration and the failures of social media platforms like Discord to adequately prevent data breaches, I cannot imagine how anyone thinks that age verification would make a single person in Massachusetts safer. Our personal information should not be put on the marketplace for anyone to buy and abuse, from Meta to Stephen Miller. The legislature should drop this effort and instead send the Consumer Data Privacy Act to Gov. Healey’s desk and actually keep us safe online.” – Noah Risley (they/them), Jamaica Plain Progressives Steering Committee Member.

“Intersectional Innovation and Impact Labs opposes age verification requirements and similar forms of digital surveillance targeting youth due to serious privacy concerns and the ways these measures widen existing digital divides, particularly for vulnerable communities seeking access to critical resources. With 28% of Boston’s population being foreign-born, surveillance measures such as ID checks will not effectively address online harms against youth, but instead risk deepening economic and health inequities by limiting access to essential information and support.” -Muhammad Burhan (They/Them), Executive Director of III Labs.

Follow-up from webinar “The Tech Billionaires Are Coming for Fair Share. Here’s How to Fight Back.”

Thank you so much to everyone who joined us last night for our webinar “The Tech Billionaires Are Coming for Fair Share. Here’s How to Fight Back.”! 

You can watch the video here. And feel free to share it with friends! 

Next Steps

PM in the News: “A ballot question to eliminate party primaries in Massachusetts is dividing state Democrats”

Chris VanBuskirk, “A ballot question to eliminate party primaries in Massachusetts is dividing state Democrats,” Boston Globe, May 11, 2026.

Jonathan Cohn, policy director for Progressive Massachusetts and a former state committee member, said all-party primaries increase the power of candidates who can self-fund their own campaigns.

He pointed to a 2018 congressional race in California, which also has a “top-two” primary system and where the open seat initially drew more than a half dozen Democratic candidates.The lineup eventually winnowed to those who could bankroll their bid. Gil Cisneros, who scored a $266 million lottery jackpot with his wife in 2010, won the election.

In California, among those vying in the crowded race for governor this year is hedge-fund billionaire Tom Steyer, who’s already spent more than $130 million on the campaign, most of it from his own pockets.

“It increases the power of big money,” Cohn said of the “top-two” primary system.

Cohn also said opposition to the ballot question has united factions of the Massachusetts Democratic State Committee that were at odds last year amid an insider battle over the party’s platform, which saw a push to spell out support for LGBTQ+ protections, rent control, transgender individuals, and efforts to address systemic racism.

“Across all factions, people thought that the ballot question was a bad idea,” Cohn said.

Brookline.News: “Younger candidates push out some of Brookline’s political old guard in progressive sweep”

Sam Mintz and Vivi Smilgius, “Younger candidates push out some of Brookline’s political old guard in progressive sweep,” Brookline.News, May 6, 2026.

“This was an election about getting people to the polls,” said Miriam Aschkenasy, a former Select Board member who is one of the leaders of the recently launched group Progressive Brookline. “We have an idea about what we think Brookline should be as a community, and we have to get people involved.” 

…

Zimmerman, the 43-year-old co-founder of B4E, received the most votes by a large margin. She was endorsed by both B4E and Progressive Brookline.

“Between those two groups, you had a lot of very passionate people organizing around the election, door knocking, reaching out to their networks,” she said. 

…In Precinct 9, all five of the winners were endorsed by Brookline for Everyone and Progressive Brookline. 

Across Town Meeting races, those groups did exceedingly well: 95% of Town Meeting candidates endorsed by both Brookline for Everyone and Progressive Brookline were successful, compared with 76% endorsed by Brookline by Design, B4E’s frequent antagonist, which advocates for a more deliberate planning process. Eighty-five percent of Brookline PAX endorsees won. 

…

“I think that for a long time, a select few people really were the people involved in town politics. I think that’s changing,” said Aschkenasy of Progressive Brookline. “I think we are mobilizing a new group of people who want to do something and say something.” 

…

Federspiel, the incumbent, said this election felt like a shift toward more progressive values, which the past couple of elections have strayed away from. She added that new political groups in town, such as Progressive Brookline, played a big role — and raised some questions about existing groups and their values.

“The [Progressive Brookline] board has new faces, new voices … something like Brookline PAX has been around for a while. There’s not so many new faces, new voices,” Federspiel said. “They had supported me in the past and they did not endorse me this time. I don’t believe I’m less progressive, so I’m kind of thinking they’re less progressive.”

NEW LETTER: Massachusetts social media ban will help Trump and will not keep kids safe from Big Tech

See the original at https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2026-05-11-new-letter-massachusetts-social-media-ban-will-help-trump-and-will-not-keep-kids-safe-from-big-tech/

The Massachusetts House has advanced H. 5349 (now H. 5366), a draconian and unconstitutional bill that would ban minors from social media, force social media platforms to enable parental surveillance of teenagers’ online activity, and subject everyone to privacy-invading online ID checks in order to access information or speak out online.

Dozens of civil liberties, racial justice, LGBTQ+, press freedom, abortion access, and human rights organizations have spoken out against these dangerous and misguided “age verification” laws, several of which have had their constitutionality questioned by the courts.

And a Massachusetts-based coalition of LGBTQ groups including the The Queer Neighborhood Council, III Labs, Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, ACLU of MA, and the Transgender Emergency Fund have specifically been pressuring local lawmakers on this issue. Late last year, the Boston City Council introduced a resolution condemning “age verification” and censorship legislation, citing harm to the city’s LGBTQ youth. 

Trans youth in Massachusetts are already terrified of losing their health care. They’re being terrorized by a bigoted administration. Now Massachusetts lawmakers are advancing legislation that would cut them off from access to lifesaving online resources and support? Shameful doesn’t begin to cover it. 

Big Tech social media companies cause real harm, and lawmakers are right to want to do something about it. They should pass privacy, antitrust, and algorithmic justice legislation that actually makes sense and is enforceable. Instead, Massachusetts legislators are actively helping Trump’s authoritarian takeover by pushing for legislation that expands censorship and surveillance. This bill is a gift to the Palantirs of the world—expanding Trump’s surveillance state by forcing everyone to associate their government ID with everything they post at a time when the DOJ is sending subpoenas to social media companies demanding they hand over the names of people running accounts critical of ICE. 

This legislation would make kids less safe, not more safe, while forcing everyone to upload their government ID or submit to a facial recognition scan in order to post online. The definition of “social media” in the bill is so wildly broad it would sweep in almost the entire Internet, including resources like Wikipedia. 

Even red states with conservative supermajorities have avoided some of the parental surveillance provisions present in the Massachusetts bill that raise serious concerns for the safety of LGBTQ youth and young people’s right to privacy. Requiring social media platforms to verify parental consent is completely unworkable. The logistics of this requirement are a nightmare: proving that an adult is a guardian of a child requires giving very sensitive information to social media platforms that are already ripe for data breaches and presents even more obstacles for young people in abusive families, foster care, and parents navigating complicated custody dynamics. This is an impractical and invasive idea that has been abandoned in almost every other version of this type of legislation across the country. 

Age verification and censorship legislation will hurt kids and benefit Big Tech. If Massachusetts lawmakers want to address harm, they should listen to experts, scrap this terrible bill, and instead advance privacy legislation that strikes at the heart of social media companies’ harmful business practices.

We recommend Massachusetts lawmakers engage with human rights groups on their concerns with this bill. We oppose any version of this bill that mandates invasive age verification, bans young people from social media, requires parental surveillance of teenagers, and strips everyone on the internet regardless of age of their anonymity.

Additional resources on this topic:

Signed,

Act on Mass
Advocates for Youth
Arts Equity Group
ArtsWorcester
Asian American Resource Workshop
Asian Pacific Islanders Civic Action Network – Massachusetts
Boston Democratic Socialists of America
Boston Sex Workers and Allies Collective
Brandeis Democrats
Digital Fourth
EducateUS
Episcopal City Misson
Fight for the Future
For Artists By Artists
Freedom of the Press Foundation
Frizz Media
GreenRoots
Guardian Project
IfNotNow Boston
Indivisible Upper Cape
Intersectional Innovation and Impact (III) Labs
Jamaica Plain for Palestine
Jamaica Plain Progressives
Jewish Voice for Peace – Boston
Kavod Boston
Mass 50501
Massachusetts Pirate Party
Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC)
MassEquality
Matahari Women’s Worker Center
Mid Cape Indivisible
MRKH Intersex
Muslim Justice League
Neighborhood Grow Plan
North Shore Progressives
Old Pros Org
Pa’lante Transformative Justice
Parenting is Political
Partners in Sex Education
Progressive Massachusetts
Protect Trans Futures
Secular Student Alliance
SIECUS
Sierra Club Massachusetts
Somerville for Palestine
Student Clinic for Immigrant Justice (SCIJ)
Student Press Law Center
The Coalition for Student Mental Health
The Cordial Eye
The Queer Neighborhood Council
The Tor Project
Unitarian Universalist Mass Action Network
United American Indians of New England (UAINE)
V’ahavtah: A Judaism Beyond Zionism Synagogue
Woodhull Freedom Foundation
Yale Privacy Lab

MA Senate Votes 37 to 3 for the PROTECT Act

The MA Senate today voted 37 to 3 to pass the PROTECT Act, which takes important steps to protect immigrant communities in Massachusetts, such as banning new 287(g) agreements, preventing law enforcement from asking about immigration status or using resources for civil immigration enforcement, limiting information sharing with ICE, protecting courthouses and other sensitive locations, and more.

After four efforts to weaken the bill, Republicans Patrick O’Connor (R-Weymouth) and Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) joined Democrats in voting for it.

Bruce Tarr’s amendment to strike language giving any money received for the Department of Correction’s 287(g) agreement with ICE to the Office of Refugees and Immigrants failed 5 to 34 (party line).

His amendment to bar any entity receiving public funds for legal representation in immigration law from representing undocumented people similarly failed on a party line vote of 5 to 34. Amid attacks on due process, everyone should be entitled to representation. Legal representation can actually help people secure legal status.

Tarr’s amendment to weaken the provision banning police from asking about immigration status failed 7 to 32, with Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford) and John Velis (D-Westfield) joining Republicans.

Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton)’s amendment to allow ICE detainers, which violate due process rights as well as the Massachusetts constitution, failed 10 to 29. John Cronin (D-Fitchburg), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Millbury), and John Velis (D-Westfield) joined Republicans in voting for it.

The Senate adopted six amendments to strengthen the bill:

  • Senator Lydia Edwards (D-East Boston)’s amendments to protect the courthouse grounds as well as the insides of courthouses (#10) and to establish a commission on matters related to federal immigration enforcement in the Commonwealth (#20)
  • Senator Adam Gómez (D-Springfield)’s amendments to expedite the bill’s effective date (#7) and to broaden the definition of child care center (#34)
  • Senator Robyn Kennedy (D-Worcester)’s amendment to extend sensitive locations protections to Department of Developmental Services facilities and Mass Health Day Habilitation programs (#6)
  • Senator Liz Miranda (D-Roxbury)’s amendment to protect health care workers against retaliation for any attempts to act in good faith in following the bill’s dictates (#13)