Massachusetts Question 2, Advisory Commission for Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Regarding Corporate Personhood and Political Spending Initiative (2018)

Elections in Massachusetts, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 17
• Early voting: Oct. 22 - Nov. 2
• Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6

• Online registration: Yes
• Same-day registration: No
• Voter ID: No ID required generally
• Poll times: 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

---

On the ballot: U.S. Senate • U.S. House • Governor • Attorney General • Secretary of State • State executive offices • State Senate • State House • Special state legislative • State ballot measures • Municipal • Democratic primaries • Republican primaries

Massachusetts Question 2
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Campaign finance
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens
List of Massachusetts measuresMassachusetts Question 1Massachusetts Question 2Massachusetts Question 3Submit

Massachusetts Question 2, an initiative to create an advisory commission for amendments to the U.S. Constitution regarding corporate personhood and political spending, was on the ballot in Massachusetts as an indirect initiated state statute on November 6, 2018. It was approved.

A yes vote was a vote in favor of establishing a 15-member citizens' commission to advocate for certain amendments to the United States Constitution regarding political spending and corporate personhood.

A no vote was a vote against creating a 15-member citizens' commission to advocate for certain amendments to the United States Constitution regarding political spending and corporate personhood.

Election results

Massachusetts Question 2
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,871,989	71.36%
No		751,447	28.64%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What did Question 2 do?

Question 2 created a citizens commission composed of 15 members. The commission was designed to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution, specifically regarding overturning Citizens United and defining inalienable constitutional rights as belonging to individual living human beings, not artificial entities or collections of human beings. The commission created reports on the following:

• political and election spending in Massachusetts;
• the legal ability of the state government to regulate corporations; and
• proposals for federal constitutional amendments and actions recommended for advancing the proposed amendments.

The measure was designed to take effect on January 1, 2019, and the commission's first report was required on December 31, 2019.

Who backed Question 2?

One ballot measure committee—People Govern, Not Money— was registered in support Question 2. The committee raised $330,771.65 and spent $330,514.85

No on Two for Freedom of Speech registered to oppose the measure but did not report any campaign finance activity.

Measure design

Question 2 created a 15-member commission called the Citizens Commission Concerning a Constitutional Amendment for Government of the People. The commission will be tasked with advocating for and advising about policies to define inalienable constitutional rights as belonging to individual living human beings, not artificial entities or collections of human beings, and recommending the amendment of the U.S. Constitution to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. The commission will be tasked with urging state legislators to support the ratification of such an amendment. The commission will be required to develop reports on (1) political and election spending in Massachusetts, (2) the legal ability of the state government to regulate corporations, (4) proposals for federal constitutional amendments, and actions recommended for advancing the proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Of the commission's 15 members, the governor will appoint three members, the secretary of state would appoint three members, the attorney general will appoint three members, the speaker of the House will appoint three members, and the president of the Senate would appoint three members. Any resident of Massachusetts can apply to serve on the commission. Commissioners will not be paid.

The measure was designed to take effect on January 1, 2019, and the commission's first report was on December 31, 2019.

Proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires (a) approval by a two-thirds majority vote in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate or (b) a constitutional convention requested by the legislatures of two-thirds (34) of the states; the constitutional convention method has not been used for any of the 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution so far. Once proposed by Congress or a convention, an amendment must be ratified by three-fourths (38) of the states.

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 2, 2018?

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for Question 2 was as follows:

This proposed law would create a citizens commission to consider and recommend potential amendments to the United States Constitution to establish that corporations do not have the same Constitutional rights as human beings and that campaign contributions and expenditures may be regulated. Any resident of Massachusetts who is a United States citizen would be able to apply for appointment to the 15-member commission, and members would serve without compensation. The Governor, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, the state Attorney General, the Speaker of the state House of Representatives, and the President of the state Senate would each appoint three members of the commission and, in making these appointments, would seek to ensure that the commission reflects a range of geographic, political, and demographic backgrounds. The commission would be required to research and take testimony, and then issue a report regarding (1) the impact of political spending in Massachusetts; (2) any limitations on the state’s ability to regulate corporations and other entities in light of Supreme Court decisions that allow corporations to assert certain constitutional rights; (3) recommendations for constitutional amendments; (4) an analysis of constitutional amendments introduced to Congress; and (5) recommendations for advancing proposed amendments to the United States Constitution. The commission would be subject to the state Open Meeting Law and Public Records Law. The commission’s first report would be due December 31, 2019, and the Secretary of the Commonwealth would be required to deliver the commission’s report to the state Legislature, the United States Congress, and the President of the United States. The proposed law states that, if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2019. A YES VOTE would create a citizens commission to advance an amendment to the United States Constitution to limit the influence of money in elections and establish that corporations do not have the same rights as human beings. A NO VOTE would not create this commission.

Full text

The full text of Question 2 is available here.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

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 19, and the FRE is 19. The word count for the ballot summary is 322, and the estimated reading time is 1 minute and 25 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

People Govern, Not Money led the campaign in support of Question 2.

Supporters

Organizations

• American Promise
• Our Revolution

Individuals

• Jeffrey Clements, former assistant attorney general
• Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s

Arguments

• Jeffrey Clements, president of American Promise, author of Corporations Are Not People, and former assistant attorney general of Massachusetts, said, "The greatest threat to a government of, for, and by the people is the takeover of our political system by concentrated wealth and power. The 28th Amendment is the only way to combat a corrupt political system dominated by money and take back our republic."

• Counsel for American Promise wrote, "Restoring electoral integrity is not a partisan issue; overruling Citizens United and related cases is important for all citizens regardless of political affiliation. We need to reclaim our democracy by returning to the principle of “we the people,” where “people” means human beings. On Nov. 6, Massachusetts voters can express their desire to take corporate money out of politics by approving Question 2."

Official argument

The following official argument was submitted by Jeff Clements—representing People Govern, Not Money—in favor of Question 2:

“ A YES vote advances an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to limit the influence of money in elections and ensure all Americans have an equal voice in our democracy. Behind our nation’s challenges is a crisis of billionaires and special interests using money to buy access and influence with politicians. These special interests are well-represented, while most Americans are not. The Supreme Court says that laws limiting political spending violate the First Amendment. Most Americans know this is incorrect: Money is not speech, it is power, and concentrated power requires checks and balances. 75% of Americans, including liberals and conservatives, support this amendment to correct the Court, with 19 states and over 200 Massachusetts communities formally calling for it. This measure creates a non-partisan, unpaid Citizens Commission to be the people’s advocate for this amendment, with commissioners serving at no cost to taxpayers. ”

Opposition

Opponents

• Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance

Arguments

Official argument

The following official argument was submitted by the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance in opposition to Question 2:

“

The controversy surrounding the Citizens United decision hinges on our cherished right to Freedom of Speech. In the decision, the court ruled to expand that freedom and apply it equally to all entities and organizations, rather than just the arbitrary list of winners and losers selected by elected officials in previous campaign finance laws. This is a good thing. The First Amendment protection of our Freedom of Speech is one of the pillars of our democracy and should be preserved and expanded at every possible opportunity. The less government standing in the way of the exercise of that right, the stronger it is. However, even if you disagree with the Citizens United decision, an amendment to the United States Constitution is a dangerous and misguided way to go about undoing it. Please vote no on this question.

”

If you are aware of any opponents or opposing arguments, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Massachusetts ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$330,771.65
Opposition:	$0.00

One ballot measure committee—People Govern, Not Money— was registered in support Question 2. The committee raised $330,771.65 and spent $330,514.85

No on Two for Freedom of Speech registered to oppose the measure but did not report any campaign finance activity.

Support

Committees in support of Question 2, Advisory Commission for Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Regarding Corporate Personhood and Campaign Finance Initiative Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures People Govern, Not Money $214,189.63 $116,582.02 $213,932.83 Total $214,189.63 $116,582.02 $213,932.83

Totals in support Total raised: $330,771.65 Total spent: $330,514.85

Donors

The following were the top donors who contributed to the support committee.

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
American Promise Initiative, Inc.	$18,000.00	$97,415.45	$115,415.45
Jeffrey Clements	$13,500.00	$0.00	$13,500.00
John Wass	$10,000.00	$0.00	$10,000.00
Tracy Winn	$5,260.35	$0.00	$5,260.35
Free Speech For People	$0.00	$5,228.70	$5,228.70

Methodology

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

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2018 ballot measure polls

• A Boston Globe/UMass Lowell poll conducted October 1-7, 2018, found that 66 percent of respondents said they would vote yes on the measure, 29 percent would vote no, and 6 percent were undecided.

• A WBUR News/MassInc Polling Group poll conducted September 17-21, 2018, found that 66 percent of respondents would vote yes on Question 2 and 24 percent would vote no. Ten percent of respondents remained undecided.

• A poll conducted by Suffolk University and the Boston Globe from September 13-17, 2018, found that 72 percent of respondents supported the measure while 20 percent opposed the measure. Eight percent were undecided.

Massachusetts Question 2
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Boston Globe/UMass Lowell poll 10/1/18 - 10/7/18	66.0%	29.0%	6.0%	+/-4.4	791
WBUR News/MassInc Polling Group poll 9/17/18 - 9/21/18	66.0%	24.0%	10.0%	+/-4.4	506
Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll 9/13/18 - 9/17/18	72.0%	20.0%	8.0%	+/-4.4	500
AVERAGES	68%	24.33%	8%	+/-4.4	599
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.

Media editorials

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• The Daily Free Press said: "It’s high time that political spending is no longer considered a freedom of speech. Allowing corporations and unions with billions of dollars to spend as much as they want limits the political process, drowns out the voices of everyday Americans and is to the detriment of democracy."
• The Telegram & Gazette said: "What motivates us in supporting the measure is the opportunity to develop a solution in which we all would have an equal say, one in which the wealthiest couldn’t drown out everyone else. It’s an opportunity to work on a solution bringing greater transparency and equality to the system. Plus the fact that, in a manner of the Electoral College, whatever emerges will require both red states and blue states as equals to agree."

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials opposed to Question 2. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

See also: Campaign finance requirements in Massachusetts

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is the independent regulatory agency that administers and enforces federal campaign election laws. While the FEC governs federal election campaigns and contribution limits, individual states enforce their own regulations and reporting requirements. Regulations vary by state, as do limits on campaign contributions and third-party activities to influence elections.

This ballot initiative was designed to create a commission tasked with repealing specific federal regulations encapsulated in the United States Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The case was decided on January 21, 2010. The Citizens United regulations do not have direct or specific impacts on Massachusetts' own campaign finance regulations; instead, they deal with whether or not federal First Amendment rights—free speech—apply to a corporation. The initiative's sponsoring organization, People Govern, Not Money, has stated that they pursued an initiative in Massachusetts because ballot measures are an effective way to inform Congress about sentiment throughout the United States. The nonprofit organization American Promise works nationally to garner support for a 28th amendment to the United States Constitution. As of December 2017, American Promise reported that 19 states and over 800 cities and towns had passed resolutions in support of a 28th Amendment to overturn Citizens United.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a United States Supreme Court case involving Citizens United, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, and whether the group's film critical of a political candidate could be defined as an electioneering communication under the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act. Decided in 2010, in a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited, because doing so would violate the First Amendment.

The Court's decision struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold Act that banned for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions from broadcasting electioneering communications in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections. The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). The decision upheld, however, the requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements, and the ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidates.

Election policy on the ballot in 2018

Electoral system
Electoral systems by state
Ranked-choice voting (RCV)
Academic studies on RCV
Election dates
Election agencies
Election terms
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker

Voters considered ballot measures addressing election policy in 15 states in 2018.

Redistricting:

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot

• Ohio Issue 1, Congressional Redistricting Procedures Amendment (May 2018) a - The Ohio State Legislature, through a bipartisan vote, referred Issue 1 to the ballot for the election on May 8, 2018. The measure was written to change the vote requirements to pass congressional redistricting maps and the standards used in congressional redistricting in Ohio. Voters approved Issue 1.

• Colorado Amendment Y, Independent Commission for Congressional Redistricting Amendment (2018) a - The amendment was written to create a 12-member commission responsible for approving district maps for Colorado's congressional districts. Democrats and Republicans in the Colorado State Legislature voted to refer the measure. It was approved.

• Colorado Amendment Z, Independent Commission for State Legislative Redistricting Amendment (2018) a - The amendment was written to create a 12-member commission responsible for approving district maps for Colorado's state House and state Senate. Democrats and Republicans in the legislature voted to refer the amendment. It was approved.

• Michigan Proposal 2, Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2018) a - The organization Voters Not Politicians collected more than the required 315,654 signatures for the initiative. The initiative was designed to transfer the power to draw the state's congressional and legislative districts from the Michigan State Legislature to an independent redistricting commission. It was approved.

• Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) a - The PAC Clean Missouri collected signatures to get the initiated amendment on the ballot. The measure made changes to the state's lobbying laws, campaign finance limits for state legislative candidates, and legislative redistricting process. The position of nonpartisan state demographer was created. Amendment 1 made the demographer responsible for drawing legislative redistricting maps and presenting them to the House and Senate apportionment commissions.

• Utah Proposition 4, Independent Advisory Commission on Redistricting Initiative (2018) a - The measure created a seven-member independent redistricting commission to draft maps for congressional and state legislative districts. The committee Utahns for Responsive Government collected more than the required 113,143 signatures to get the initiative certified for the ballot.

Voting requirements and ballot access:

• Arkansas Issue 2, Voter ID Amendment (2018) a - Issue 2 was designed to require individuals to present a valid photo ID to cast non-provisional ballots in person or absentee. The Arkansas State Legislature referred the measure to the ballot, with Republicans and four of 30 Democrats voting to put Issue 2 on the ballot. It was approved.

• Florida Amendment 4, Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative (2018) a - The committee Floridians for a Fair Democracy collected more than the required 766,200 signatures to get Amendment 4 placed on the ballot. The measure was designed to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation. It was approved.

• Louisiana Amendment 1, Felons Disqualified to Run for Office for Five Years Amendment (2018) a - This measure was put on the ballot by the state legislature. Louisiana voters approved Amendment 9 in 1998 to prevent convicted felons from seeking or holding public office for 15 years following the completion of their sentences. Amendment 9 was struck down by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 2016. It was approved.

• Maryland Question 2, Election-Day Voter Registration Amendment (2018) a - Legislative Democrats voted to place the amendment the ballot. The measure was designed to authorize a process for registering qualified individuals to vote at a precinct polling place on election day. It was approved.

• Michigan Proposal 3, Voting Policies in State Constitution Initiative (2018) a - Promote the Vote collected more than 315,654 valid signatures to get the initiative placed on the ballot. Proposal 3 was designed to add several voting policies to the Michigan Constitution, including straight-ticket voting, automatic voter registration, no-excuse absentee voting, and same-day voter registration. It was approved.

• Montana LR-129, Ballot Collection Measure (2018) a - The Montana State Legislature voted to place the measure on the ballot, through the support of 80 of 91 Republicans and one of 59 Democrats. The measure was written to ban persons from collecting the election ballots of other people, with exceptions for certain individuals. It was approved.

• Nevada Question 5, Automatic Voter Registration via DMV Initiative (2018) a - The measure was designed to provide for the automatic voter registration of eligible citizens when receiving certain services from the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The Nevada Election Administration Committee, a project of iVote, collected more than the required 55,234 signatures to get Question 5 placed on the ballot. It was approved.

• North Carolina Voter ID Amendment (2018) a - This amendment was referred to the ballot by the state legislature along party lines with Republicans voting in favor of it and Democrats voting against it. It created a constitutional requirement that voters present a photo ID to vote in person. It was approved.

• North Dakota Measure 2, Citizen Requirement for Voting Amendment Initiative (2018) a - North Dakotans for Citizen Voting collected more than the required 26,904 valid signatures to qualify this initiative for the ballot. The measure was designed to clarify that only a U.S. citizen can vote in federal, state, and local elections in North Dakota. It was approved.

Arkansas Issue 3, a legislative term limits initiative, was certified for the ballot but was blocked by an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling. The measure would have imposed term limits of six years for members of the Arkansas House of Representatives and eight years for members of the Arkansas Senate. The ruling came too late to remove the measure from the ballot, but the supreme court ordered election officials to not count or certify votes for Issue 3.

Campaign finance, political spending, and ethics:

• Colorado Amendment 75, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (2018) d - Proponents collected more than the required 136,328 valid signatures and met the state's distribution requirement to qualify this initiative for the ballot. The measure would have established that if any candidate for state office directs (by loan or contribution) more than one million dollars in support of his or her own campaign, then every candidate for the same office in the same primary or general election may accept five times the aggregate amount of campaign contributions normally allowed. It was defeated.

• Massachusetts Question 2, Advisory Commission for Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Regarding Corporate Personhood and Political Spending Initiative (2018) a - This citizen initiative was designed to establish a 15-member citizens' commission to advocate for certain amendments to the United States Constitution regarding political spending and corporate personhood. It was approved.

• Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) a - Besides the redistricting provisions of Amendment 1 described above, Missouri Amendment one also made changes to the state's lobbying laws and campaign finance limits for state legislative candidates.

• North Dakota Measure 1, Ethics Commission, Foreign Political Contribution Ban, and Conflicts of Interest Initiative (2018) a - North Dakotans for Public Integrity collected more than the required 26,904 valid signatures to qualify this initiative for the ballot. Measure 1 established an ethics commission, ban foreign political contributions, and enact provisions related to lobbying and conflicts of interest. It was approved.

• South Dakota Constitutional Amendment W, State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, Government Accountability Board, and Initiative Process Amendment (2018) d - The committee Represent South Dakota collected more than the required 27,741 signatures to get the initiative certified for the ballot. The measure was designed to revise campaign finance and lobbying laws, create a government accountability board, and enact new laws governing the initiative and referendum process. It was defeated.

• South Dakota Initiated Measure 24, Ban Out-of-State Contributions to Ballot Question Committees Initiative (2018) a - This citizen initiative banned out-of-state contributions to committees supporting or opposing ballot measures within South Dakota. Rep. Mark Mickelson (R-13), speaker of the South Dakota House of Representatives, sponsored the initiative. It was approved.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, the number of signatures required to place an indirect initiated state statute on the ballot is equal to 3.5 percent of votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election. The first 3 percent is collected in order to refer the indirect initiative to the Massachusetts General Court. If members of the General Court pass and the governor signs the initiative, then the initiative becomes law. If the legislature declines to act on an initiative or the governor vetoes it, sponsors of the initiative need to collect additional signatures equal to 0.5 percent of the votes cast for governor.

To make the 2018 ballot, sponsors of an initiative needed to collect the first round of 64,750 signatures between September 20, 2017, and November 22, 2017. If the General Court failed to act on the initiative by May 2, 2018, then an additional 10,792 signatures were required by July 4, 2018.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Ballot Access Management LLC to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $153,000.00 was spent to collect the 75,542 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $2.03.

Details about this initiative

On September 6, 2017, Attorney General Maura Healey (D) approved the initiative for signature gathering.

The People Govern Not Money campaign reported turning in about 85,000 signatures to the office of the secretary of the commonwealth by the deadline on December 6, 2017. The office of the secretary of the commonwealth confirmed that signature petitions for this initiative were submitted. Prior to submission to state officials, the signatures were submitted to local registrars of voters by a deadline on November 22, 2017, and verified by the local registrars.

On December 21, 2017, the secretary of state said that a sufficient number of signatures had been submitted and certified the measure to move forward in the process. The next step is for the measure to go before the Massachusetts General Court.

Since the General Court failed to act on the initiative by May 2, 2018, an additional 10,792 signatures were required by July 4, 2018.

On July 5, 2018, initiative sponsors confirmed to Ballotpedia that they had submitted over 20,000 signatures to the Massachusetts Secretary of State's office in addition to the 85,000 signatures they submitted during the first round of signature gathering.

On July 9, 2018, the Massachusetts Secretary of State assigned the measure an official ballot question number, meaning the measure was certified for the ballot.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Massachusetts

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 requirements

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

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Definition of a corporation on the ballot
• Federal constitutional issues on the ballot
• Campaign finance on the ballot

Massachusetts

• Massachusetts ballot measures
• Massachusetts ballot measure laws

News and analysis

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