Ballot Question 1 Tests Legislative Transparency, Again

Amid an ongoing push to increase the transparency of the state house, Massachusetts voters will decide whether to subject the state Legislature and governor’s office to public records laws — opening government financial documents and communications to public scrutiny after years of exemption.

Massachusetts has long faced scrutiny over the transparency of its government, and is the only state where the legislature, governor’s office, and state judiciary are all exempt from the state’s public records law. Ballot Question 1 would partially remove that exemption, allowing members of the public to request records from the Legislature and governor’s office.

The ballot question is the second transparency-focused measure to appear on the ballot from State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, who pushed to expand her power to audit the legislature in 2024 — and won more than 70 percent of the vote. Legislative leaders have since disputed the scope of her authority, arguing the law violates the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branch. DiZoglio has filed a complaint with the state Supreme Judicial Court to enforce the audit.

What Would Question 1 Do?

A “yes” vote on Question 1 would make financial documents, contracts, and administrative correspondence from the Legislature and governor’s office publicly available upon request on Jan. 1, 2027.

The proposition comes as the state House has taken on its own effort to limit the scope of the proposed audit. In June, the House passed its own bill addressing public records and the audit. The bill would subject only the governor’s office to the state’s public records law, but it would leave the Legislature exempt. Instead, the bill would create an internal Legislature-run system to handle requests, limiting the scope to 17 categories of legislative records — most of which are already public.

Additionally, the bill would limit the scope of the legislative audit to only encompass certain administrative functions of the legislature, such as the adoption of a budget, the commissioning of an official audit, the spending of appropriated funds, and the execution of monetary settlement agreements.

A “no” vote would preserve the exemptions for the Legislature and governor’s office.

Supporters Tout Transparency

DiZoglio said that a ‘yes’ vote would promote a state government that is “transparent, accessible, and accountable” by giving residents direct access to records her office has unsuccessfully sought through its legislative audit.

“If we pass Question 1, all of the records that I was seeking to get access to as the state auditor, but was denied access to, those records would be made available directly to you, the people of Massachusetts, upon request,” DiZoglio said.

Support for Question 1 has garnered more than $1.4 million, with three committees backing the measure: the Committee for Transparency and Democracy, the Coalition for Healthy Democracy 2026, and the Democratic Socialists For a Fair Massachusetts. The Coalition for Healthy Democracy 2026 is also backing Question 3, which would eliminate political party primaries in favor of a single, all-party primary.

Question 1 has also been backed by Cambridge’s lawmakers on Beacon Hill, including Reps. Steven Owens and Marjorie C. Decker, both of whom said they planned to vote in support of the ballot question on Election Day.

“This is something that I care about. It’s something that I know my constituents care about,” Owens said. “It makes sense to give people a feeling that the government is not hiding things from them.”

If passed, the ballot question would exempt communications from constituents involving requests for government-provided benefits, services, or assistance interacting with state or federal agencies. Despite these exemptions, Owens raised questions about whether they would adequately protect those communications, particularly when constituents seek help involving local government entities.

“These details may have to be ironed out about what that exactly means in practice,” Owens said.

Opponents Call Question 1 Overbroad

While there is no official campaign against Question 1, the state’s official voter guide details concerns raised in a legislative committee report as the argument against the measure.

“The proposed law includes overly broad and poorly defined exemptions,” the argument reads. “This lack of comprehensive privacy protection will negatively affect civic engagement and deter residents from contacting their elected officials. Ultimately, this measure creates a flawed framework that fails to deliver genuine accountability while actively compromising constituent privacy.”

The argument was written by the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, but does not reflect the office’s stance on the issue.

In a statement, State House Speaker Ronald J. “Ron” Mariano wrote that the Legislature’s bill, if passed, would have the same effect as Question 1.

“The Legislature is actively working to achieve the same goal as the ballot question — to expand and guarantee public access to legislative records,” Mariano wrote, adding that the bill would “advance that objective while addressing the constitutional considerations necessary to ensure that the reforms can withstand scrutiny and provide a durable framework for greater transparency.”

Sarah E. Blodgett, a spokesperson for Senate President Karen E. Spilka, wrote in a statement that the legislature’s bill would be more effective than Question 1.

“The bill is stronger, clearer, and holds the Legislature more accountable than Question 1, and has clear rules, a tested review process, and real protections for sensitive information, all of which are absent from the ballot measure,” Blodgett wrote.

DiZoglio argued that the bill would undermine both the 2024 audit initiative and this year’s public records measure.

“The legislature is trying to undermine the people’s constitutional right to create laws at the ballot box by, in real time, passing legislation to overturn the results of the election when it has to do with something that they don’t support,” DiZoglio said.

State Sen. William N. Brownsberger ’78, whose district includes parts of Cambridge and Allston-Brighton, wrote that he supported both Question 1 and the legislature’s efforts.

“If the question is transparency, the answer has to be yes,” Brownsberger wrote.

—Staff writer Tess E. Sumner can be reached at [email protected].

—Staff writer Kevin Zhong can be reached at [email protected].