The Liberty Alliance of Massachusetts offers the following recommendations for the eight initiative petitions and one repeal petition on this years statewide ballot.
1: YES
|
2: NO
|
3: NO
|
4: YES
|
5: YES
|
6: NO
|
7: NO
|
8: NO
|
9: NO
|
See below for commentaries.
YES on Question 1:
Transparency and accountability in our public institutions is a fundamental liberal value. This should not be controversial.
NO on Question 2:
Our sixth Amendment, the right to fast and fair trial, is in danger if the CPCS is allowed to withhold its duties against the weakest amongst us. There is no price for justice but the labor and that is not a right that can stand alone at least in the realm of law itself. The duty and obligation to each other is reciprocal. Have you not heeded your call to the Jurors notice? What if you were accused? Shall the Public defender hold the court hostage if fair compensation not compelled. One may be dismissed and recused but defile the practice I'd rather forgo. Auction the cases or oneself, justice to bid just not collectively. Only the individual may stand freely for other not the other way by law, would be tyranny and a grave conflict of interest.
NO on Question 3:
Voters in Massachusetts and across the country are in broad agreement that our political system is dysfunctional, and that the way we elect political candidates is a big part of that dysfunction. The political parties that run the primary election system are not, it seems, sending us their best.
Voter satisfaction with the Democratic and Republican parties has been declining for decades. This is reflected in declining party registration. Between 2006 and 2026, the proportion of Bay State voters registering as Democratic, has decreased from 36.9% to 24%, and Republican has decreased from 12.5% to 8%, while Unenrolled has increased from 49.8% to 67%.
Taking the primary election process out of the hands of the political parties is a good idea whose time has come. But no idea is so good that it can’t be destroyed by a sufficiently bad idea. In this case it is an open primary with plurality, or first past the post voting, combined with a top-two final. The evidence shows that this will further entrench the two decaying parties and make them even less responsive to voters. It will lock out independent and third-party campaigns almost completely.
LAMA supports ranked-choice, or instant-runoff voting (RCV), and lower ballot access thresholds. An accessible open primary where the top 5 go to a general RCV election will elect more candidates with majority support and go a long way towards healing our electoral dysfunction.
By keeping Massachusetts ballot access requirements among the most burdensome in the nation, and restricting the general election to the top two of an open primary, voters will have fewer choices. The incentive to trade their true preference for the "lesser evil" will be even greater. In a large field, such as an open congressional seat, the majority of voters will not even see their top choice in the general election. Question 3 is "electoral reform theater" that will worsen our electoral dysfunction while poisoning the political climate for genuine electoral reform.
NO on Question 4:
The liberal position is to enfranchise more voters. Question 4 would allow people to vote who have recently moved or who have been dropped from the voter rolls because they haven't voted for some period of time. Objections to question 4 center around fraud, which is a dog whistle for the MAGA "new conservatives" who would like to restrict the vote and disenfranchise groups that they assume won't vote the way they want.
However, this question requires proof of identity and residency to be presented by the voter. Other objections are that ir would make more work for clerks. However, administering voter registration is actually the job of the city and town clerks. To complain that this involves "extra" work is simply false and a smoke screen for the real agenda of the opponents - that is, making it harder for people to vote. We need to make it as easy as possible for people to vote, not harder.
YES on Question 5:
Ballot Question 5 seeks to restore the stricter revenue limits that existed prior to the adoption of the "Millionaires Tax" that was adopted in 2022. That change in the tax law exempted the inclusion of revenue from the "Millionaires Tax" in the calculation of the revenue cap that was adopted in 1986.
The State Committee of the Liberty Alliance of Massachusetts supports a YES vote on Question 5. There is no reason to create a revenue "loophole" for the state in the application of the cap. A YES vote would NOT repeal the "Millionaires Tax", but simply require its inclusion in the revenue cap.
NO on Question 6:
Question 6 would divert a portion of the sales tax from certain types of businesses (sporting goods, recreational vehicles, golf courses) towards a "Nature for All" fund administered by a new 15 member board, with seats reserved for "underserved communities, indigenous peoples, and at least one expert on conservation".
Nature conservation is a worthy goal. LAMA applauds groups like The Nature Conservancy, which preserves natural spaces for public use without burdening the taxpayer. Question 6 has all the hallmarks of a special slush fund for rewarding political allies with jobs and budgets. The funding scheme unfairly burdens a loosely related sector of commerce for something that if worthy of public support should simply be budgeted from the general fund, not some sales tax that may overfund or underfund the goals depending on sales.
NO on Question 7:
A mans home is their castle...or castles?
The need and the want are obvious as the intent with which a home is more than a house. The State desires more houses but maybe it should be advocating for "Homes" instead. For all of the regulated income and affordable housing requirements that have been built recently many have been vacant if not then filled with transient and temporary residents and owned by foreign real estate holding companies. Perhaps those who have homes should choose, and not those who want only more houses. I digress, but the state is highly incompetent on nearly all advances in construction technology permit processes. The local individual is far preferable. Barring innovation in education, financing local zoning will resist more housing if only on top of aging, population loss and lack of well paid stable jobs. Mass is a tough but rewarding place for a home, far less so for a house builder.
NO on Question 8:
Question 8 would reverse the legalization of regulated cannabis sales to adults in Massachusetts. This is an affront to every person in the state. Recriminalizing cannabis sales would make both the product and the public less safe. When limited law enforcement resources are diverted to the prohibition of something that every adult in Massachusetts has a right to make their own decision about, it just breeds more crime and corruption. This was the lesson of alcohol prohibition.
Furthermore, hundreds of small businesses, thousands of jobs, and about $250 million in annual state revenue would be lost. The position of LAMA is that both cannabis and income are taxed at too high a rate, but a consumption tax on a luxury good is far preferable to an income tax, or a sales tax on necessary items. Those are the taxes that our legislature will raise to make up the shortfall, rather than cutting spending as they should.
NO on Question 9:
This AI-assisted blurb was submitted by a long-time member of LAMA. Liberal and Libertarian views on Gun control are the same. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, and is one of the few rights with a reason encoded in its statement: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What this means is that the purpose of putting arms in the hands of the people is meant as a safeguard for our liberty. This is a more radical stance and strongly advocates for our right to keep and bear arms. Those who scoff at the statement of "A well-regulated Militia" are completely missing the point. An unarmed population is not free.
Core libertarian principles applied:
Libertarianism prioritizes individual liberty, the non-aggression principle, private property rights, and strict limits on government coercion. Self-defense is a fundamental natural right; the tools of self-defense (including firearms) are protected extensions of that right. Government may punish actual aggression or credible threats after due process, but it should not preemptively restrict peaceful ownership, impose registration schemes that create databases of law-abiding owners, ban categories of arms based on cosmetic or functional features, or expand civil processes that seize property without a criminal conviction. The 2024 law (H.4885 / Chapter 135) does the opposite on multiple fronts:
- It expands the prior “assault weapon” ban into a broader “assault-style firearm” features-based ban (plus roster). Libertarians generally view such bans as arbitrary, ineffective against criminals, and an infringement on the right to keep commonly owned defensive arms.
- It mandates a real-time electronic registration system tying firearms to owners. Registration is widely opposed in libertarian thought because it enables future confiscation, creates a permanent government record of peaceful activity, and treats ownership itself as a regulated privilege rather than a right.
- It requires serialization of privately made firearms (including 3D-printed ones) and restricts unlicensed manufacture. Private production of arms for personal use is seen as an exercise of property rights and self-reliance; mandating state tracking is viewed as overreach.
- It expands Extreme Risk Protection Orders (“red flag” laws) so school administrators and licensed healthcare providers can petition for temporary firearm seizure. While temporary risk-based restrictions after robust due process can be debated even among libertarians, expanding the pool of petitioners and pairing it with other restrictions increases the risk of abuse, false reports, and due-process shortcuts.
- Additional barriers such as mandatory safety certificates for new licenses, carry prohibitions in more public places, and reporting mandates further treat ownership as a heavily regulated privilege.
A “Yes” vote keeps all of these expansions in force. A “No” vote repeals them and restores the pre-2024 framework (which already included an older assault-weapon ban, licensing, and a narrower red-flag process). From a consistent liberty- maximizing perspective, reducing the scope of these restrictions is the clearer choice.
Nuances and trade-offs:
- Pure libertarians (including many anarcho-capitalists) would prefer even fewer restrictions than the pre-2024 baseline. The referendum only offers a binary: keep the new package or revert. Reverting is still a net reduction in state power.
- Some classical liberals or “minarchist” libertarians accept narrow public- safety rules (background checks for prohibited persons, basic safe-storage expectations, etc.). Even under that view, the 2024 law’s registration system, features-based ban, and expanded petitioner list go well beyond minimal, targeted measures.
- Empirical claims about “gun violence” reduction are secondary under pure principles; the burden of proof is on those seeking to restrict rights. Many libertarians also note that such laws primarily burden the law-abiding while criminals ignore them.
Practical note:
Ballot language asks whether the law “shall be approved.” Therefore:
No = repeal the 2024 expansions.
Yes = keep them.
