There 9 statewide ballot questions will be up for a vote in November 2%

By Samantha Genzer8%

7/21/2026, 11:50:17 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Unattributed Quote, and Biased Writer Voice, with Status Quo Bias as the most egregious example at 9.2% saturation with 45 hits. Analysis detected 249 faulty-reasoning hits from 488 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 12.2% and a BS Rank of 2% (20,105 of 20,473 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 98.20% of the article peer group.

Massachusetts voters will face nine statewide ballot questions when they head to the polls for the next statewide election. 
Massachusetts has not seen this many ballot questions since 1994. 
With this number of questions, the ballots in most communities are expected to be two to three pages long, though ballot length also depends on other factors, including how many local candidates are running in that community, Galvin’s office said. 
Here is a list of certified questions for the 2026 election in the order in which they will appear on the ballot, per the Elections Division. 
**Question 1: Expanding the Public Records Law** 
Under this ballot initiative, records kept by the governor’s office and the state legislature, which are currently excluded from the access requirements in Massachusetts law, would be classified as public records. 
**Question 2: Collective Bargaining for CPCS Employees** 
This measure would allow public defenders and other employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services to unionize and participate in other collective bargaining practices. 
**Question 3: State Primary Elections** 
This proposed initiative would merge individual political party primaries into a single election. 
All candidates, regardless of political affiliation, would be listed on the ballot together, and the two candidates that receive the most votes would move forward to the general election. 
**Question 4: Election Day Registration** 
This question would allow Massachusetts residents to register and vote on the day of the election. 
**Question 5: State Revenue Limit & Rebate** 
If passed, officials will use a new method for determining the state tax revenue cap. 
Currently, this cap is based on the previous year’s limit combined with the three-year average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts. 
If the question is passed, the limit would instead be calculated using the actual net state revenue from the preceding year along with the wage and salary growth. 
**Question 6: Natural Resource Conservation Fund** 
This measure proposes creating a “Nature for All Fund,” which would allocate state finances to fund nature conservative efforts. 
**Question 7: Single Family Homes** 
Under this initiative, municipalities would be permitted to allow for the construction of single-family residences on residentially zoned lots that meet specific minimum standards: at least 5,000 square feet of area, at least 50 feet of frontage along a public way or street, and connection to public sewer and water services. 
**Question 8: Prohibit Retail Sale of Adult Recreational Use Marijuana** 
This proposal seeks to overturn the 2016 ballot question that legalized the sale of recreational marijuana across Massachusetts. 
If approved, this measure would repeal the current laws permitting the sale and home cultivation of recreational marijuana, as well as establish new possession limits and civil penalties for violations. 
**Question 9: Firearms Regulation** 
The final question proposes repealing the 2024 gun reform law, which changed the ban in state law from an assault weapon ban to an assault-style firearm ban. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 1.9%Boston.com: 2.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Samantha Genzer: 1.2%Boston.com: 0.9%Anchoring Bias2.7%This article: 2.0%Samantha Genzer: 2.1%Boston.com: 3.1%Availability Heuristic2.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.9%Boston.com: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.2%Boston.com: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 1.5%Boston.com: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Samantha Genzer: 2.8%Boston.com: 6.0%Framing Effect3.1%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.6%Boston.com: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 9.2%Samantha Genzer: 0.4%Boston.com: 0.4%Status Quo Bias9.2%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 1.9%Boston.com: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.8%Boston.com: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 4.1%Boston.com: 6.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.4%Boston.com: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.4%Boston.com: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.7%Boston.com: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 1.6%Boston.com: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.0%Samantha Genzer: 1.0%Boston.com: 1.4%Recency Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.1%Boston.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.1%Boston.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.1%Boston.com: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.2%Samantha Genzer: 2.8%Boston.com: 4.1%Appeal to Authority8.2%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.7%Boston.com: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.4%Boston.com: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 1.2%Boston.com: 3.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.3%Boston.com: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 6.3%Boston.com: 6.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.7%Boston.com: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 1.0%Boston.com: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.3%Boston.com: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 3.9%Samantha Genzer: 0.1%Boston.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature3.9%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 1.1%Boston.com: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.7%Samantha Genzer: 1.5%Boston.com: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.7%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.1%Boston.com: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.2%Samantha Genzer: 1.5%Boston.com: 1.4%Unattributed Quote8.2%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.5%Boston.com: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 8.0%Samantha Genzer: 1.0%Boston.com: 4.2%Biased Writer Voice8.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 1.8%Boston.com: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 0.1%Boston.com: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Genzer: 1.3%Boston.com: 2.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

488 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker8.2%attributed speech448writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageGalvin’s office • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Galvin’s office

100%flagged-word coverage
40 attributed words100% of attributed speech29% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Galvin’s office: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.7 ptsWriter: 8.7%Galvin’s office: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.