Politics
“Regardless of our political leanings, the causes that we support, transparency is the one issue that we should all be rallying around.”
Previously dubbed an “embarrassment” and a “black hole” for government transparency, Massachusetts public records law could be revamped next month as voters weigh whether the Legislature and the governor’s office should fall under the public’s right to know.
Question 1 on the Nov. 3 ballot comes on the heels of a similar measure passed in 2024, which allowed State Auditor Diana DiZoglio to audit the Legislature. While DiZoglio is still fighting to actually enforce that audit two years later, she’s now spearheading the push to make records from the legislative and executive branches more transparent.
As-is, Massachusetts public records law explicitly exempts both the Legislature and the state court system, though the governor’s office has long maintained its records aren’t subject to the law, either. Those blind spots give Massachusetts the distinction of being one of just two U.S. states where the executive and legislative branches both claim a blanket exemption.
With broad loopholes like the ones in Massachusetts, “you kind of indicate to the public that the government isn’t beholden to the people,” said Michael Morisy, co-founder of MuckRock, a newsroom and nonprofit that provides assistance with public records requests.
“I would say that in general, there is a greater culture of secrecy in Massachusetts than in most other states,” he added.
What would Question 1 do?
The language of Question 1 is fairly straightforward; if passed, the measure would make most records held by the Legislature and the governor’s office subject to Massachusetts public records law. Notable exceptions would include documents related to public policy development, as well as communications between lawmakers and constituents who are seeking help with government agencies, benefits, or services.
Tufts University’s nonpartisan Center for State Policy Analysis found that Question 1 would “modestly improve” the public’s ability to obtain information from the Legislature and governor’s office, “particularly when seeking financial and administrative details such as contracts with vendors, spending records, and settlement agreements.”
On the other hand, researchers found that Question 1’s impact could be muted due to existing exemptions and privacy protections, ongoing efforts on Beacon Hill to pass a narrower public records framework, and mixed compliance with records requests under the current law.
Why public records access matters
Looking back on MuckRock’s early days, Morisy said he pored over years’ worth of investigative journalism that led to real-world reform.
“One of the things that I found was that time and time again, one of the common threads was access to primary source documents,” he explained. “If you have the evidence, if you have the documents, that makes reporting much more powerful and much more likely to ultimately drive change.”
But the importance of public records access goes beyond journalism, Morisy noted.
“One of the awesome things about public records is these laws are really built for everybody,” he said. “I think it’s one of the most beautiful ‘small-d democracy’ laws, because it kind of is a good reminder to both us and the government that ultimately, government is here to work on behalf of the people.”
Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, concurred.
“The public records law affects all of us, whether we’re requesting records or not, because in those records is information about what government is doing on our behalf, how it is spending our tax dollars, how it is or is not providing public services,” he stressed.
Silverman added: “Regardless of our political leanings, the causes that we support, transparency is the one issue that we should all be rallying around.”
Indeed, Question 1 has seen bipartisan support. A spokesperson for Gov. Maura Healey told Boston.com she “voluntarily complies with the public records law and supports Question 1 to subject the Governor’s Office and the Legislature to the public records law, with appropriate exemptions.”
The Massachusetts Republican Party has also endorsed Question 1, stating, “Greater transparency strengthens accountability and ensures taxpayers can see how decisions that affect their lives and wallets are actually being made.”
Yes, but…
With no organized group urging a “no” vote on Question 1, Secretary of State Bill Galvin’s office was left to summarize arguments against the ballot initiative for the state’s voter guide.
“The proposed law includes overly broad and poorly defined exemptions,” the resulting statement reads, drawing in part from the Legislature’s majority report.
The “limited and temporary” exemption for policy development “will chill open communications by lawmakers, raising significant constitutional concerns, particularly around legislative speech and debate protections,” the argument continues. The statement also raises privacy concerns stemming from the ballot question’s “narrow” protection for constituent communications.
“I think there’s ways to kind of balance these things out that the vast majority of other states have found a way to do pretty successfully,” Morisy contended. “You don’t see other states just kind of collapsing into anarchy, for the most part. So I do wonder sort of why the Massachusetts Legislature feels itself so incompetent that it can’t handle these laws that virtually every other state has no problem with.”
What about the pending public records legislation?
Meanwhile, House Speaker Ron Mariano pointed out that lawmakers are already “actively working to achieve the same goal as the ballot question — to expand and guarantee public access to legislative records.”
Over the summer, the Senate and House of Representatives both passed legislation opening public access to gubernatorial records but carving out a narrower, distinct approach to legislative records. The bill is now moving through the conference committee process, and Tufts’ Center for State Policy Analysis points out that the proposed rules would explicitly supersede Question 1.
Massachusetts Senate President Karen Spilka did not return a request for comment on Question 1. For his part, Mariano said the bill that’s before the conference committee would help expand and guarantee public records access “while addressing the constitutional considerations necessary to ensure that the reforms can withstand scrutiny and provide a durable framework for greater transparency.”
Looking ahead
To be clear, Question 1 wouldn’t be a fix-all if it does pass next month. In granting Massachusetts its 2026 Black Hole Award back in March, the Society of Professional Journalists faulted the state’s public records law for not only its broad exemptions, but its weak enforcement mechanisms and persistent delays.
“Even when we are entitled to certain records under the public records act, we don’t have any effective enforcement mechanism in the law that allows us to get those records short of litigation, which most newsrooms — never mind average community members — don’t have the resources to pursue,” Silverman noted.
While the ballot question only addresses one hurdle of many, Morisy said it’s a step in the right direction.
“I think one of the things we’ve found is that if nobody’s looking, invariably problems arise,” he said, pointing to a string of high-profile scandals on Beacon Hill over the past few decades.
“I think that’s a great chance to kind of look back and say, ‘Hey, does Massachusetts think of itself as a corrupt state?’” Morisy continued. “I don’t think many of the constituents see themselves as sort of a state that enables corruption, and so I think this is one good way to kind of push back against that.”
Ballot Question 1: How will you vote?
Sign up for the Today newsletter
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
