Massachusetts Question 1, "Right to Repair Law" Vehicle Data Access Requirement Initiative (2020)

Massachusetts Question 1
Election date November 3, 2020
Topic Business regulation and Transportation
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens
List of Massachusetts measuresMassachusetts Question 1Massachusetts Question 2Submit

Massachusetts Question 1, the "Right to Repair Law" Vehicle Data Access Requirement Initiative was on the ballot in Massachusetts as an indirect initiated state statute on November 3, 2020. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported requiring manufacturers that sell vehicles with telematics systems in Massachusetts to equip them with a standardized open data platform beginning with model year 2022 that vehicle owners and independent repair facilities may access to retrieve mechanical data and run diagnostics through a mobile-based application.

A "no" vote opposed requiring vehicles beginning with model year 2022 to be equipped with a standardized open data platform that vehicle owners and independent repair facilities may access to retrieve mechanical data and run diagnostics through a mobile-based application, thereby maintaining that vehicle owners and independent repair facilities may access mechanical and diagnostic data through a personal computer.

Election results

Massachusetts Question 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		2,599,182	74.97%
No		867,674	25.03%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Aftermath

Alliance for Automotive Innovation v. Healey

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Does the "right to repair" law violate federal law making the law unenforceable?
Court: United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Ruling: Challenge to initiative dismissed
Plaintiff(s): Alliance for Automotive Innovation	Defendant(s): Attorney General Maura Healey (D)
Plaintiff argument: The "right to repair" law violates federal law and raises safety and privacy concerns for vehicle owners.	Defendant argument: The "right to repair" law does not violate federal law.

  Source: Reuters

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a group representing General Motors, Toyota Motors, Volkswagen, and other major automakers, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on November 20, 2020. The lawsuit argued that the 2020 law is unenforceable because it conflicts with federal law and the Constitution and "makes personal driving data available to third parties with no safeguards to protect core vehicle functions and consumers’ private information or physical safety."

Rob Gray, the spokesperson for the Right to Repair Coalition, responded to the lawsuit saying, "After spending $26 million only to be resoundingly defeated at the ballot box, the big automakers still don’t get it. Their baseless, anti-democratic lawsuit attempts to thwart the will of the voters and their customers, who voted by a 75% majority for Right to Repair."

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D) said she would not enforce the law until the federal court decided the lawsuit.

On January 27, 2021, Judge Douglas Woodlock denied the attorney general's request to dismiss the case stating, "There are too many unanswered questions for me here."

The trial was set to begin on June 14, 2021.

The Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell (D) said she would start enforcing the initiative on June 1, 2023. On May 26, 2023, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation asked a federal judge to stop the enforcement until the final decision in the lawsuit. On May 31, U.S. District Judge Douglas Woodlock denied the request for a temporary restraining order to keep the attorney general from enforcing the law.

On June 13, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a letter to automakers stating that they must comply with federal vehicle safety law and not with the 2020 initiative. However, on August 24, 2023, NHTSA reversed its decision and said the state could begin enforcing the initiative. Kerry Kolodziej, the agency’s assistant chief counsel for litigation and enforcement, said in a letter announcing the decision, "We are pleased to have worked with you to identify a way that the Massachusetts Data Access Law may be successfully implemented —promoting consumers’ ability to choose independent or do-it-yourself repairs — without compromising safety."

On February 12, 2025, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper dismissed the lawsuit by the Alliance for Automotive Innovation.

Updated Automotive Repair Data Sharing Commitment

On July 11, the Automotive Service Association, Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS), and Alliance for Automotive Innovation announced that they had signed an agreement that states that "independent repair facilities shall have access to the same diagnostic and repair information that auto manufacturers make available to authorized dealer networks."

Overview

How did Question 1 (2020) change the existing "right to repair law"?

See also: Text of measure and Measure design

Question 1 (2020) required manufacturers that sell motor vehicles equipped with telematics systems to install a standardized open data platform beginning with model year 2022. The initiative defined telematics systems as a system in a motor vehicle that collects information generated by the operation of the vehicle that is then transmitted through wireless communications to a remote receiving point where it is stored. The measure allowed vehicle owners to access telematics system data through a mobile device application and to give consent for independent repair facilities to access that data and send commands to the system for repair, maintenance, and diagnostic testing.

At the time of the election, the 2013 "right to repair law" exempted telematics systems from wireless accessibility by vehicle owners and independent repair facilities.

When did Massachusetts first adopt a "right to repair law"?

See also: Massachusetts "Right to Repair" Initiative, Question 1 (2012)

The first "right to repair law" was approved by the Massachusetts General Assembly and signed into law on November 26, 2013. The 2013 law reconciled the differences between Question 1 (2012), which was approved by 87.7 percent of voters, and the legislative compromise of the initiative that was approved by the legislature on July 31, 2012. Since the legislative compromise was passed after the July 3 signature deadline, the 2012 initiative could not be removed from the ballot after qualifying.

The difference between the 2012 initiative and the legislative compromise was that the former included motorcycles, recreational vehicles, and some large trucks, while the latter dealt with automobiles and light trucks. The 2013 law that reconciled Question 1 (2012) and the legislative compromise included heavy-duty vehicles but excluded motorcycles.

In 2014, automaker associations and repair shop unions signed a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to meet the requirements of the 2013 Massachusett's "right to repair" law in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Question 1 (2020)?

See also: Support and Opposition

Massachusetts Right to Repair Coalition led the Yes on 1 campaign in support of Question 1 (2020). The coalition also previously sponsored Question 1 (2012). The campaign had raised $24.9 million in contributions. The top donors to the committee were the Coalition of Automotive Repair Equality, Auto Care Association, Auto Zone, O'Reilly Auto Parts, Advance Auto Parts, and Genuine Parts Company. Tommy Hickey, director of Massachusetts Right to Repair Coalition, said, "This is really a fight for Massachusetts consumers. Without this information, people may lose the choice to bring their car to an independent repair shop."

The Coalition for Safe and Secure Data led the No on 1 campaign in opposition to Question 1 (2020). The campaign had raised $26.6 million in contributions. The top donors to the committee were General Motors, Toyota Motor North America, Inc, Ford Motor Company, American Honda Motor Co., Inc, and Nissan North America Inc. Conor Yunits, the spokesman for the Coalition for Safe and Secure Data, said, "This ballot question will create easy opportunities for strangers, hackers and criminals to access consumer vehicles and personal driving data–including real-time location. It will put people at risk, without doing anything to improve the consumer experience."

Measure design

Question 1 (2020) required manufacturers that sell motor vehicles equipped with telematics systems to install a standardized open data platform beginning with model year 2022. The initiative defined telematics systems as "any system in a motor vehicle that collects information generated by the operation of the vehicle and transmits such information, in this chapter referred to as 'telematics system data,' utilizing wireless communications to a remote receiving point where it is stored." The measure allowed vehicle owners to access telematics system data through a mobile device application and to give consent for independent repair facilities to access that data and send commands to the system for repair, maintenance, and diagnostic testing.

Question 1 (2020) also required that manufacture authorization for mechanical data through the open data platform by owners and independent repair facilities be standardized across all makes and models and administered by an independent party. Question 1 (2020) also required the Massachusetts Attorney General to prepare notices that motor vehicle dealers present to prospective owners that explain the car's telematics systems and the requirements under the new law. Denial of access to mechanical data by a manufacturer would result in treble damages or $10,000 in compensation to the vehicle owner.

Text of measure

Ballot question

The ballot question was as follows:

“

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 5, 2020?

”

Ballot summary

The final ballot summary for Question 1 (2020) is as follows.

“

This proposed law would require that motor vehicle owners and independent repair facilities be provided with expanded access to mechanical data related to vehicle maintenance and repair. Starting with model year 2022, the proposed law would require manufacturers of motor vehicles sold in Massachusetts to equip any such vehicles that use telematics systems –- systems that collect and wirelessly transmit mechanical data to a remote server –- with a standardized open access data platform. Owners of motor vehicles with telematics systems would get access to mechanical data through a mobile device application. With vehicle owner authorization, independent repair facilities (those not affiliated with a manufacturer) and independent dealerships would be able to retrieve mechanical data from, and send commands to, the vehicle for repair, maintenance, and diagnostic testing. Under the proposed law, manufacturers would not be allowed to require authorization before owners or repair facilities could access mechanical data stored in a motor vehicle’s onboard diagnostic system, except through an authorization process standardized across all makes and models and administered by an entity unaffiliated with the manufacturer. The proposed law would require the Attorney General to prepare a notice for prospective motor vehicle owners and lessees explaining telematics systems and the proposed law’s requirements concerning access to the vehicle’s mechanical data. Under the proposed law, dealers would have to provide prospective owners with, and prospective owners would have to acknowledge receipt of, the notice before buying or leasing a vehicle. Failure to comply with these notice requirements would subject motor vehicle dealers to sanctions by the applicable licensing authority. Motor vehicle owners and independent repair facilities could enforce this law through state consumer protection laws and recover civil penalties of the greater of treble damages or $10,000 per violation.

”

Full text

The full text of the measure can be read below. Struck-through text would be deleted and underlined text would be added:

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

The proposed law has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances.

”

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The secretary of the commonwealth wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 11, and the FRE is 60. The word count for the ballot title is 26, and the estimated reading time is 6 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 11, and the FRE is 30. The word count for the ballot summary is 286, and the estimated reading time is 1 minute and 16 seconds.

Support

Massachusetts Right to Repair Coalition led the Yes on 1 campaign in support of Question 1 (2020). A full list of the coalition's members can be found here.

Supporters

Unions

• Alliance of Automotive Service Providers of Massachusetts (AASP-MA)
• Automotive Warehouse Distributors Association
• New England Tire and Service Association (NETSA)

Arguments

• Tom Hickey, director of Massachusetts Right to Repair Coalition: "This is really a fight for Massachusetts consumers. Without this information, people may lose the choice to bring their car to an independent repair shop."
• Alan Saks of Dorchester Tire Service: "We need to update the Right to Repair law before wireless technologies remove the car owner’s right to get their vehicle repaired at our local, independent shop because the automaker would rather steer them towards one of their more expensive dealers. This is common-sense reform."
• Barry Steinberg of Direct Tire in Watertown: "Massachusetts voters voted 86% in 2012 to require car companies to give access to repair information and diagnostics. But now big auto is using the next generation of wireless technology to get around our law, shut out independent repair shops, and cost car owners more money. That’s not what we voted for."

Official arguments

• Tommy Hickey of Massachusetts Right to Repair (Voter Guide): "A YES vote for Right to Repair will guarantee that as technology advances, drivers can continue to get their cars repaired where they want. We passed the first Right to Repair law in 2012, but as new cars become more computerized auto manufacturers are using a loophole to restrict access to data needed to diagnose problems, make repairs, and perform maintenance. This means car owners are steered toward more expensive dealer repair options. Vote YES to protect independent repair shops and preserve your ability to shop around. Voting YES provides access ONLY to mechanical and repair information, not personal information. A YES vote ensures that YOU will have the choice to provide access to the repair information necessary to fix your car to your local independent repair shop even as cars become more computerized. It’s your car, you paid for it, you should get it fixed where you want."

Campaign advertisements

The following video was released by Right to Repair Coalition:

Title: "Right to Repair Massachusetts 'Trust'"

Opposition

The Coalition for Safe and Secure Data led the No on 1 campaign in opposition to Question 1 (2020).

Arguments

• Conor Yunits, spokesman for the Coalition for Safe and Secure Data: "This ballot question will create easy opportunities for strangers, hackers and criminals to access consumer vehicles and personal driving data–including real-time location. It will put people at risk, without doing anything to improve the consumer experience."
• David Schwietert, chief policy officer for Alliance For Automotive Innovation: "[T]his initiative is really about third parties seeking bi-directional remote access to a consumer’s driving habits, patterns, and location in real-time. Such a far-reaching mandate risks making personal data readily available to third parties and creates absolutely no safeguards for how consumer information is stored, protected, or used afterwards. Simply put, while manufacturers remain committed to allowing consumers to decide where to take their vehicle for repair and maintenance needs, there is no scenario in which real-time, remote access by third parties would be necessary to diagnose or repair a vehicle."

Official arguments

• Steve McElhinney of Coalition for Safe and Secure Data (Voter Guide): "Vote NO on Question 1 to protect your privacy, your safety, and your family. Question 1 has nothing to do with fixing cars. Question 1 is a data grab by third parties who want to gather your personal vehicle information and access it remotely, including location data in real time. Domestic violence advocates warn how dangerous this information could be. Jane Doe, the Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence, wrote, 'Access to vehicle data, particularly call logs and GPS location, enables persons who perpetrate abuse to possess the tools necessary to track and monitor their victim.' A similar proposal failed in California after the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault warned, 'from this information, a third party, such as a sexual predator, could stalk and/or harm victims.' Privacy advocates, cybersecurity experts, and domestic violence advocacy groups urge you to vote NO on Question 1."

Campaign advertisements

The following video was released by the Coalition for Safe and Secure Data:

Title: "No on 1: Parking Garage"

Campaign finance

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through January 20, 2021.

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Massachusetts ballot measures

Ballotpedia identified one ballot measure committee—Right to Repair Coalition—registered in support of Question 1 (2020) and one committee—Coalition for Safe and Secure Data—registered in opposition to the initiative. The Right to Repair Coalition committee received $24.9 million in contributions. The Coalition for Safe and Secure Data received $26.6 million in contributions.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$24,868,976.47	$33,102.67	$24,902,079.14	$23,895,859.90	$23,928,962.57
Oppose	$26,423,003.91	$132,880.18	$26,555,884.09	$26,420,503.91	$26,553,384.09
Total	$51,291,980.38	$165,982.85	$51,457,963.23	$50,316,363.81	$50,482,346.66

Support

The following chart contains the contributions and expenditures made by the committee:

Committees in support of Question 1
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Right to Repair Coalition	$24,868,976.47	$33,102.67	$24,902,079.14	$23,895,859.90	$23,928,962.57
Total	$24,868,976.47	$33,102.67	$24,902,079.14	$23,895,859.90	$23,928,962.57

Top donors

The following chart contains the top donors to the committee:

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Auto Care Association	$4,590,000.00	$0.00	$4,590,000.00
Coalition of Automotive Repair Equality	$4,155,000.00	$0.00	$4,155,000.00
AutoZone	$3,000,000.00	$25,000.00	$3,025,000.00
Advance Auto Parts	$3,000,000.00	$0.00	$3,000,000.00
Genuine Parts Company	$3,000,000.00	$0.00	$3,000,000.00
O'Reilly Auto Parts	$3,000,000.00	$0.00	$3,000,000.00

Opposition

The following chart contains the contributions and expenditures made by the committee:

Committees in opposition to Question 1
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Coalition for Safe and Secure Data	$26,423,003.91	$132,880.18	$26,555,884.09	$26,420,503.91	$26,553,384.09
Total	$26,423,003.91	$132,880.18	$26,555,884.09	$26,420,503.91	$26,553,384.09

Top donors

The following chart contains the top donors to the committee:

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
General Motors	$5,462,879.86	$5,629.11	$5,468,508.97
Toyota Motor North America, Inc	$4,519,009.00	$0.00	$4,519,009.00
Ford Motor Company	$4,458,776.00	$0.00	$4,458,776.00
American Honda Motor Co., Inc	$2,966,420.00	$0.00	$2,966,420.00
Nissan North America Inc.	$2,406,924.00	$0.00	$2,406,924.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• Boston Globe Editorial Board: "It is inherently unfair for car manufacturers to have sole access to a vehicle’s mechanical data, because it gives their dealerships an advantage over independent auto-repair shops. That ultimately hurts consumers, because with limited options come higher prices. Giving car owners and lessees the ability to choose who has access to their vehicle data allows them to repair their cars wherever they please, whether that be at the car dealership, the closest Jiffy Lube, or their local independent auto-repair shop. ... [I]f the ballot measure is passed, the Legislature must follow up to better regulate telematics and ensure that all connections to vehicles are as safe and secure as possible. ... [F]or the sake of fairer competition, people should vote yes on Question 1 — and proceed to demand that their elected representatives do their jobs to keep everyone safe."
• The Harvard Crimson Editorial Board: "Advocates of Question 1’s proposed modification to the 2013 'Right to Repair' law claim it will allow auto service companies to compete fairly against auto dealerships when offering repair services in an increasingly cordless age. The law seeks to protect against a future in which auto manufacturers have an oligopoly on accessing wirelessly transmitted mechanical data and can consequently upcharge for superior service informed by data only they can access. ... We encourage voters to put the brakes on the unfair advantage auto manufacturers will increasingly have by voting 'Yes' on Ballot Question 1, guaranteeing the 'right to repair' in Massachusetts."
• Boston Business Journal Editorial Board: "Without the ability to repair cars equipped with wireless electronics, repair shops will see declines in business in coming years as car owners are forced to get repairs done at more expensive dealerships. In the end, more of the millions of dollars that Bay State residents spend every year to fix their cars would go to out-of-state manufacturers. More neighborhood car-repair shops will go out of business. In the end, the course of action that most benefits consumers is also the one that is best for local businesses. Clearly, more competition is better when it comes to auto repairs. A 'yes' on question one is best for consumers and local businesses."
• The Berkshire Eagle Editorial Board: "Right to Repair proponents, however, say that there is a loophole in the existing law that allows car manufacturers to withhold access to telematics — systems data retrieved wirelessly and not via a physical port on the vehicle. On this year’s ballot, Question 1 gives voters a chance to close this loophole, and The Eagle’s editorial board believes they should."

Opposition

Ballotpedia had not identified media editorial boards in opposition to the ballot measure.

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2020 ballot measure polls

Massachusetts Question 1, "Right to Repair Law" Vehicle Data Access Requirement Initiative (2020)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
University of Massachusetts Amherst/WCVB Poll (Registered voters) 10/14/2020-10/21/2020	75%	15%	11%	+/-4.5	713
Ipsos poll (Adults) 10/7/2020-10/15/2020	58%	22%	20%	+/-3.5	1,001
MassInc Polling Group poll (Registered voters) 8/7/2020-8/8/2020	57%	31%	12%	+/-4.4	501
AVERAGES	63.33%	22.67%	14.33%	+/-4.13	738.33
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Massachusetts 2013 "Right to Repair Law"

See also: Massachusetts "Right to Repair" Initiative, Question 1 (2012)

"Right to repair" laws refer to legislation that requires manufactures to give to owners or independent repair shops access to data needed to repair vehicles, electronics, or other forms of technology. The first "right to repair law" was approved by the Massachusetts General Assembly and signed into law on November 26, 2013. The 2013 law reconciled the differences between Question 1 (2012), which was approved by 87.7 percent of voters in 2012, and the legislative compromise of the initiative that was approved by the legislature on July 31, 2012. Since the legislative compromise was passed after the July 3 signature deadline, the 2012 initiative could not be removed from the ballot after qualifying. A "right to repair law" had passed in the state Senate once before in 2010, but the previous measure never received a vote by the state House.

Question 1 (2012) required automobile manufacturers beginning with model year 2018 to sell diagnostic software to access mechanical data to independent repair facilities and vehicle owners. The diagnostic data had been exclusively accessible to dealerships and authorized repair shops prior to the initiative. The legislative compromise, which enacted similar requirements as the initiative went into effect on November 6, 2012. The difference between the 2012 initiative and the legislative compromise was that the former included motorcycles, recreational vehicles, and some large trucks, while the latter dealt with automobiles and light trucks. The 2013 law that reconciled Question 1 (2012) and the legislative compromise included heavy-duty vehicles but excluded motorcycles.

2014 Memorandum of Understanding

On January 15, 2014, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Association for Global Automakers, the Auto Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA), and the Coalition for Auto Repair Equality (CARE) signed a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to meet the requirements of the Massachusett's "right to repair" law in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. It also required that AAIA and CARE do not directly or indirectly support "right to repair" legislation in other states during the two year implementation period or before January 2, 2019, whichever came earlier. The full text of the Memorandum of Understanding can be read here.

"Right to repair laws" in other states

During the 2019-2020 legislative session, "right to repair laws" had been introduced in 17 states including Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont, New York, Washington, Georgia, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Alabama, Maine, Missouri, Colorado, Maryland, New Hampshire, California, and Idaho, and New Jersey. As of July 2020, Massachusetts was the single state that had adopted a "right to repair law".

Telematics systems in motor vehicles

The 2020 initiative defines telematics systems as "any system in a motor vehicle that collects information generated by the operation of the vehicle and transmits such information, in this chapter referred to as 'telematics system data,' utilizing wireless communications to a remote receiving point where it is stored." According to the Global Automotive OEM Telematics Market Report published in 2019, an estimated 41 percent of all new motor vehicles sold worldwide were equipped with telematics systems in 2018. In North America, the rate was 53 percent of motor vehicles sold in 2018.

Common features of telematics systems in motor vehicles include:

• collision notification
• emergency assistance
• roadside assistance
• vehicle diagnostics
• media streaming
• geofencing

Ballot measures in Massachusetts

A total of 39 measures appeared on statewide ballots in Massachusetts from 1996 to 2018. Three ballot measures on average appeared on even-numbered ballots during that period. About 54 percent (21 of 39) of the total number of measures that appeared on statewide ballots were approved, and about 46 percent (18 of 39) were defeated.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, the number of signatures required to qualify an indirect initiated state statute for the ballot is equal to 3.5 percent of the votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election. No more than one-quarter of the verified signatures on any petition can come from a single county. The process for initiated state statutes in Massachusetts is indirect, which means the legislature has a chance to approve initiatives with successful petitions directly without the measure going to the voters. A first round of signatures equal to 3 percent of the votes cast for governor is required to put an initiative before the legislature. A second round of signatures equal to 0.5 percent of the votes cast for governor in the last election is required to put the measure on the ballot if the legislature rejects or declines to act on a proposed initiated statute. Signatures for initiated statutes in Massachusetts are collected in two circulation periods. The first period runs from the third Wednesday in September to two weeks prior to the first Wednesday in December, a period of nine weeks. If the proposed law is not adopted by the first Wednesday of May, petitioners then have until the first Wednesday of July (eight weeks) to request additional petition forms and submit the second round of signatures.

The requirements to get an initiated state statute certified for the 2020 ballot:

• Signatures required (first round): 80,239 signatures
• Signatures required (second round): 13,374 signatures
• Deadline (first round): The deadline to submit the first round of signatures to the secretary of state was December 4, 2019. Signatures needed to be submitted to local registrars by November 20, 2019.
• Deadline (second round): The deadline to submit the second round of signatures was July 1, 2020.

If enough signatures are submitted in the first round, the legislature must act on a successful petition by the first Wednesday of May. The measure only goes on the ballot if the legislature does not pass it and if the second round of signatures is successfully collected.

Details about this initiative

Coronavirus pandemic
Select a topic from the dropdown below to learn more. Political responses overviewState reopening plansDocumenting America's Path to RecoveryElection changesChanges to vote-by-mail and absentee voting proceduresFederal responsesState responsesState executive ordersStay-at-home ordersMultistate agreementsNon-governmental reopening plansEvictions and foreclosures policiesTravel restrictionsEnacted state legislationState legislative session changesSchool closuresState court closuresInmate releasesLocal government responsesDiagnosed or quarantined politiciansBallot measure changesArguments about government responsesThe 1918 influenza pandemicPandemic Response Accountability CommitteeUnemployment filingsLawsuitsBallotpedia's polling on the coronavirus pandemicSubmit

• Question 1 (2020) was cleared to circulate on September 4, 2019.
• The sponsors of the initiative submitted signatures to local registrars on November 20, 2019.
• The sponsors of the initiative submitted 103,634 signatures to the secretary of state on December 4, 2019. Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin verified that more than 80,239 signatures were valid. The legislature had until May 5, 2020, to pass the ballot measure. Since it did not, petitioners needed to gather a second round of signatures to place it on the 2020 ballot.
• On April 26, 2020, the campaigns supporting Massachusetts "Right to Repair" Initiative, Massachusetts Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative, Massachusetts Nursing Homes Medicaid Ratemaking Initiative, and Massachusetts Beer and Wine in Food Stores Initiative filed a suit jointly against Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin seeking permission to gather the 13,347 signatures needed by July 1 electronically. Petitioners argued, "Without immediate relief from this Court, Petitioners and all other ballot proponents similarly situated will face an unduly burdensome Catch-22: either risk their health and the health of voters to satisfy unjustifiable and unachievable ballot restrictions and participate in democracy or protect their health and give up their fundamental right to access the ballot."
  • On April 29, 2020, all four campaigns and Secretary Galvin agreed to a resolution that allows the campaigns to gather the second round of 13,347 signatures by distributing the petitions online to be electronically signed or printed and mailed back to the respective campaign.
• Since the General Court failed to act on the initiative by May 5, 2020, an additional 13,347 signatures were required by July 1, 2020.
• Right to Repair Massachusetts reported submitting over 26,000 unverified signatures by the July 1 deadline.
• On July 8, 2020, Coalition for Safe and Secure Data filed a complaint arguing that the third-party vendor Right to Repair Massachusetts hired to conduct its electronic signature gathering violated the protocols described in the ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court by storing signatures before importing them into the petition. Conor Yunits, a spokesperson for the coalition, said, "The signature gathering effort used by ballot question proponents not only violated public policy and failed to meet the standards outlined by the court, it also put the personal information of more than 24,000 Massachusetts voters at risk for potential misuse, hacking and identity theft."
  • The complaint against the initiative was withdrawn.
• On July 10, 2020, the Massachusetts Secretary of State reported that 17,596 signatures were valid of the 26,000 signatures submitted certifying the initiative for the November ballot.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired JEF Associates to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $459,431.60 was spent to collect the 93,613 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $4.91.

Reports and analyses

Note: The inclusion of a report, white page, or study concerning a ballot measure in this article does not indicate that Ballotpedia agrees with the conclusions of that study or that Ballotpedia necessarily considers the study to have a sound methodology, accurate conclusions, or a neutral basis. To read a full explanation of Ballotpedia's policy on the inclusion of reports and analyses, please click here. If you would like to submit a report or analysis to be considered for inclusion in this section, email editor@ballotpedia.org.

Impact on motor vehicle cybersecurity

James C. Owens, the deputy administrator for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), submitted a letter on July 20, 2020, to the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure to address the impact of Question 1 (2020) on motor vehicle cybersecurity. The letter was a response to the committee's request for a testimony by the federal agency.

Owens began the letter by stating that the NHTSA recommends that manufacturers provide "strong vehicle cybersecurity protections that do not unduly restrict access by authorized alternative third-party repair services." He then described the purpose of Question 1 (2020) and the potential impact it could have on motor vehicle cybersecurity and transportation safety. He argued that the initiative was vague when it described the platform that would be implemented to transmit mechanical data and vehicle commands. He continued that the initiative did not reference any best practices or standards to address cybersecurity risks. Owens also said he was concerned about the standardized platform that was susceptible to cybersecurity attacks while vehicles were in motion and the quick timeline to implement such a platform across manufacturers. Owens concluded by saying, "Two of the most important techniques—logical and physical isolation of vehicle control systems from external connections, and controlling access to firmware that executes vehicle functions—may be rendered impossible by the provisions of this ballot initiative. The ballot initiative requires vehicle manufacturers to redesign their vehicles in a manner that necessarily introduces cybersecurity risks, and to do so in a timeframe that makes design, proof, and implementation of any meaningful countermeasure effectively impossible."

The full text of the letter can be found here.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Massachusetts

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Massachusetts.

How to cast a vote in Massachusetts

The information below covers regular voting policies in the state. Information may have not applied to the election on November 3, 2020, because of temporary changes in response to coronavirus. Click here to read about changes made for the 2020 elections. Poll times In Massachusetts, most polling places are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. However, municipalities may open their polls as early as 5:45 a.m. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Registration Check your voter registration status here. To vote in Massachusetts, one must be a United States citizen, a resident of Massachusetts, and at least 18 years old on or before Election Day. The deadline for registration is 10 days prior to the election. A voter can register online, by mail, or in person at any registration office or the Registry of Motor Vehicles. A form of identification is required to register. The following are acceptable forms of identification: Valid driver's license State-issued identification card Current utility bill Bank statement Paystub Government-issued check Any other government document displaying the voter's name and address Automatic registration Massachusetts automatically registers eligible individuals to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles, division of medical assistance, health insurance connector authority, and other agencies that collect what state law defines as reliable citizenship information. Online registration See also: Online voter registration Massachusetts has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registration Massachusetts does not allow same-day voter registration. Residency requirements To register to vote in Massachusetts, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible. Verification of citizenship See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States Massachusetts does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual must attest that they are a U.S. citizen when registering to vote. According to the state's voter registration application, the penalty for an illegal registration is a "fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years or both." All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters. Verifying your registration The Elections and Voting page, run by the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirements Massachusetts does not require voters to present identification (ID) while voting, in most cases. However, voters will be asked to show ID in the following circumstances: “ You are voting for the first time in Massachusetts in a federal election; You are an inactive voter; You are casting a provisional or challenged ballot; The poll worker has a reasonable suspicion that leads them to request identification. ” The following list of accepted ID was current as of August 2024: A driver's license A state ID card A recent utility bill A rent receipt or lease. A copy of a voter registration affidavit A letter from a school dormitory or housing office Any other printed identification which contains your name and address Click here for the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information. “ Acceptable identification must include your name and the address at which you are registered to vote. Examples of acceptable identification include: a driver's license, state-issued ID card, recent utility bill, rent receipt, lease, a copy of a voter registration affidavit, or any other printed identification which contains the voter's name and address. ”

See also

2020 measures

• 2020 ballot measures
• Business regulation on the ballot
• Transportation on the ballot

Massachusetts

• Massachusetts ballot measures
• Massachusetts ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Question 1 full text
• Massachusetts 2020 Voter Guide

Support

• Massachusetts Right to Repair Coalition campaign website
• Massachusetts Right to Repair Coalition Facebook page
• Massachusetts Right to Repair Coalition Twitter page

Opposition

• Coalition for Safe and Secure Data campaign website
• Coalition for Safe and Secure Data Facebook page
• Coalition for Safe and Secure Data Twitter page