Massachusetts Question 2, Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2020)

Massachusetts Question 2
Election date November 3, 2020
Topic Electoral systems
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens
List of Massachusetts measuresMassachusetts Question 1Massachusetts Question 2Submit

Massachusetts Question 2, the Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative was on the ballot in Massachusetts as an initiated state statute on November 3, 2020. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported enacting ranked-choice voting (RCV) for primary and general elections for state executive officials, state legislators, federal congressional and senate seats, and certain county offices beginning in 2022.

A "no" vote opposed changing the existing plurality voting system to ranked-choice voting for primary and general elections for state executive officials, state legislators, federal congressional and senate seats, and county offices.

Election results

Massachusetts Question 2
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,549,919	45.22%
No		1,877,447	54.78%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Reactions

The following is a list of reactions to the defeat of Question 2:

• Kevin Bowe, a documentarian and journalist, wrote, "In a time of massive voter dissatisfaction with our political system—much of it related to the two-party stranglehold—the democracy reform movement could not convince voters to adopt reform. This requires a fundamental rethinking of the messaging strategy."
• Secretary of State Bill Galvin said, "The idea behind it is a reasonable idea, but it’s complex, and many voters didn’t really grasp what it would mean for them."
• Anthony Amore, spokesman for the No on 2 Committee and 2018 Republican nominee for secretary of state, said, "While I vehemently disagreed with their voting system, and am relieved that we on the No on 2 Committee were successful in our efforts to stop ranked-choice voting, I do agree that the Commonwealth is in need of reforms to lessen the stranglehold incumbency has on our state. The advocates for ranked-choice voting spoke often of what they called a 'duopoly' dominating politics in Massachusetts. ... We are the very picture of a one-party state—and that is far more dangerous to good governance than a duopoly." Amore proposed other election reforms that included moving primaries to earlier in the year, randomizing candidates' names on the ballot rather than listing incumbents first, and removing the phrase 'Candidate for Reelection' from incumbents' names on the ballot.

Overview

How would Question 2 have changed the way Massachusetts votes?

See also: Measure design and Text of measure

Question 2 would have enacted ranked-choice voting (RCV) for primary and general elections for state executive officials, state legislators, federal congressional representatives, and certain county offices. RCV is a voting method in which voters rank candidates according to their preferences. If a candidate receives greater than 50% of all first-preference votes, the candidate is declared the winner and the tabulation ends. If no candidate receives a simple majority of first-preference votes, then the candidate receiving the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the eliminated candidate are eliminated, and the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots are tallied as their first-preference in the following round. The process is continued until a candidate wins a simple majority (50%+1) of the vote. If there is a tie for last place, the candidates' support from earlier rounds would be compared to determine who should be eliminated.

At the time of the election, statewide elections in Massachusetts used a plurality voting system and semi-closed primaries. A semi-closed primary, also known as a hybrid primary, is a type of primary election in which previously unaffiliated voters may participate in the partisan primary of their choice. Voters who are already affiliated with a political party can vote only in that party's primary.

At the time of the election, Amherst and Easthampton, had adopted but not implemented ranked-choice voting. Cambridge has used RCV since 1941 to elect the nine-seat city council and the six-seat school board.

What other state voted on ranked-choice voting in 2020?

See also: Election policy on the ballot in 2020

Alaska decided on Ballot Measure 2, which was designed to replace the state's partisan primaries with open top-four primaries for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices and establish ranked-choice voting for general elections, including the presidential election, in which voters would rank the candidates.

As of 2020, one state (Maine) had implemented RCV at the state level. Another eight states contained jurisdictions that had implemented RCV at some level. Another five states contained jurisdictions that had adopted but not yet implemented RCV in local elections.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Question 2?

See also: Support and Opposition

Voter Choice Massachusetts led the Yes on 2 campaign in support of the ballot initiative. The campaign received $9.7 million in contributions. Shauna Hamilton, deputy campaign manager of Voter Choice for Massachusetts, said, "Ranked Choice Voting is simple, fair and easy. On your ballot, you can vote for just one candidate like you always have, or you can rank your first choice, your second choice and your third choice, just like you rank things in order in your everyday life. If your favorite candidate can’t win, your vote is instantly counted for your second choice so your vote matters more."

Ballotpedia identified one committee registered in opposition to Question 2—No Ranked Choice Voting. The committee reported $8,475.70 in contributions. Jennifer Braceras, director of Independent Women’s Law Center and board member of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, opposed the measure saying, "Frequently hailed as a way to give voters more choice and reduce polarization, ranked-choice voting is, in fact, a complex and confusing process that threatens to reduce voter participation and distort election outcomes. ... Massachusetts voters should be leery of complicated bureaucratic schemes that can reduce voter participation, increase opportunities for corruption, and lead to unforeseen, difficult-to-explain results."

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 ballot summary for Question 2 is as follows:

“ This proposed law would implement a voting system known as “ranked-choice voting,” in which voters rank one or more candidates by order of preference. Ranked-choice voting would be used in primary and general elections for all Massachusetts statewide offices, state legislative offices, federal congressional offices, and certain other offices beginning in 2022. Ranked-choice voting would not be used in elections for president, county commissioner, or regional district school committee member. Under the proposed law, votes would be counted in a series of rounds. In the first round, if one candidate received more than 50 percent of the first-place votes, that candidate would be declared the winner and no other rounds would be necessary. If no candidate received more than 50 percent of the first-place votes, then the candidate or candidates who received the fewest first-place votes would be eliminated and, in the next round, each vote for an eliminated candidate would instead be counted toward the next highest-ranked candidate on that voter’s ballot. Depending on the number of candidates, additional rounds of counting could occur, with the last-place candidate or candidates in each round being eliminated and the votes for an eliminated candidate going to the voter’s next choice out of the remaining candidates. A tie for last place in any round would be broken by comparing the tied candidates’ support in earlier rounds. Ultimately, the candidate who was, out of the remaining candidates, the preference of a majority of voters would be declared the winner. Ranked-choice voting would be used only in races where a single candidate is to be declared the winner and not in races where more than one person is to be elected. Under the proposed law, if no candidate received more than 50 percent of first-place votes in the first round, the rounds of ballot-counting necessary for ranked-choice voting would be conducted at a central tabulation facility. At the facility, voters’ rankings would be entered into a computer, which would then be used to calculate the results of each round of the counting process. The proposed law provides that candidates in a statewide or district election would have at least three days to request a recount. The Secretary of State would be required to issue regulations to implement the proposed law and conduct a voter education campaign about the ranked-choice voting process. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2022. ”

Full text

The full text of Question 2 can be read below:

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

This measure will likely require implementation costs for state and municipal elections officials, but because the proposed law would only apply to elections and primaries that are held on or after January 1, 2022, the fiscal consequences of this proposed measure for state and municipal government finances are otherwise unknown.

”

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 14, and the FRE is 42. The word count for the ballot summary is 404, and the estimated reading time is 1 minute and 47 seconds.

Support

Voter Choice Massachusetts led the Yes on 2 campaign in support of the ballot initiative.

Supporters

Officials

• U.S. Senator Edward J. Markey (D)
• U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D)
• U.S. Representative Catherine Clark (R)
• U.S. Representative Joseph Kennedy III (D)
• U.S. Representative Jim McGovern (D)
• U.S. Representative Seth Moulton (D)
• U.S. Representative Seth Moulton (D)
• U.S. Representative Ayanna Pressley (D)
• U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin (D)
• U.S. Representative Lori Trahan (D)
• Secretary of state William Galvin (D)
• Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D)

Candidates

• Jake Auchincloss (D) - Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives
• Becky Grossman (D) - Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives
• Alan Khazei (D) - Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives
• Ihssane Leckey (D) - Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives
• Natalia Linos - Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives
• Jesse Mermell (D) - Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives
• Ben Sigel (D) - Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives
• Chris Zannetos (D) - Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives

Former Officials

• Former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger
• Former Massachusetts lieutenant governor Kerry Healey
• Former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick (D)
• Former ambassador Samantha Power (D)
• Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers
• Former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld (R)

Political Parties

• Democratic Party of Massachusetts
• Green Party
• Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts
• Libertarian Party of Massachusetts
• Serve America Movement Party

Unions

• AFSCME Council 93
• Boston Teachers Union
• Massachusetts AFL-CIO
• Massachusetts Teachers Association
• SEIU Massachusetts State Council

Organizations

• Amplify LatinX
• Common Cause Massachusetts
• Democracy for America
• Election Reformers Network
• FairVote Action Fund
• Indivisible Mass Coalition
• Lawyers for Civil Rights Boston
• League of Women Voters
• MassVote
• Massachusetts Immigrant & Refugee Advocacy Coalition
• Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group
• Progressive Democrats of America
• Public Higher Education Network of Massachusetts
• Represent.Us
• Sierra Club Massachusetts
• The RoxVote Coalition
• Unite America

Individuals

• Danielle Allen (D) - College professor
• Michael Douglas - Actor
• Jennifer Lawrence - Actress
• Steve Pagliuca - Businessman
• Andrew Yang (D) - Former Democratic presidential candiate
• Mike Zarren - Celtics assistant general manager

Arguments

• Cheryl Clyburn Crawford, executive director of MassVote: "Ranked choice voting puts more power into the hands of voters, where it belongs. By allowing us to rank candidates, it gives us more say at the ballot box. You will never feel your voice isn’t heard or your vote doesn’t count. We deserve a government that works for “We the people,” not for special interests or the establishment and its hand-picked candidates."
• Shauna Hamilton, deputy campaign manager of Voter Choice for Massachusetts: "Ranked Choice Voting is simple, fair and easy. On your ballot, you can vote for just one candidate like you always have, or you can rank your first choice, your second choice and your third choice, just like you rank things in order in your everyday life. If your favorite candidate can’t win, your vote is instantly counted for your second choice so your vote matters more."
• Kevin Johnson, founder and executive director of Election Reformers Network, and Mac D’Alessandro, executive director of Voter Choice for Massachusetts: "Voters could be confident that if their favorite candidate can’t win, their second or third choice would still count toward determining the winner. Candidates wouldn’t be pressured to bow out early to avoid splitting the vote. Party primaries could be relied on to produce a candidate with broad support."
• Evan Falchuk, chair of the Ranked Choice Voting 2020 Committee: "One of the challenges of people trying to run as a third-party or independent is that people say if you vote for that person, you’re wasting your vote or they’re a spoiler. That’s not fair. With ranked-choice voting that goes away because people can vote for who they like and who they want to vote for rather than picking who they dislike less. It opens up our democracy to those voices. It’s something that’s needed."
• Senator Elizabeth Warren (D) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D): "By requiring the winner to reach more than 50 percent of the vote, ranked choice voting ensures the winning candidate is the one with the broadest appeal to the majority of voters. The ability to mobilize the broadest and deepest appeal across the electorate would replace the ability to target a passionate minority constituency, which may be extreme or non-representative from the standpoint of most voters as the key to winning."
• Andrew Yang, former Democratic candidate for president: "If passed in Massachusetts, ranked choice voting can contribute to a surge of democratic reforms that’ll sweep the nation and fix a lot of what’s wrong with our system today. Ranked choice voting gives you more choice, more voice, and more power. Just think about how much better we would feel about our politics if voters had this kind of choice. We would feel free to vote based on which candidate best represented our values, instead of voting for a candidate based on their odds of winning. We wouldn’t feel like we’d have to send our kids out of the room when politics comes on the news, because every candidate would want to be your second choice if they couldn’t be your first."

Official arguments

• Shauna Hamilton of Voter Choice for Massachusetts (Voter Guide): "A YES VOTE adopts ranked choice voting, a common-sense reform that puts more power in the hands of voters. Ranked choice voting addresses three problems: • Big money and corrupt special interests have too much control over our democracy • Politicians can win with less than a majority, and independents are shut out • Politics are tearing us apart, preventing solutions to major challenges It works by giving voters the option to rank candidates in order of preference. You can vote for just one candidate like you always have, or you can rank your first, second and third choice. If your favorite candidate doesn’t win, your vote is instantly counted for your second choice so candidates must compete for every vote. Ranked choice voting ensures the winner has majority support and reflects the true will of the people. A YES VOTE gives voters more voice and will help make our democracy stronger."

Opposition

No Ranked Choice Voting led the campaign in opposition to Question 2.

Opponents

Officials

• Massachusetts Governor Charles Baker
• Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito (R)

Political Parties

• Republican Party of Massachusetts

Unions

• Massachusetts Public Retirees Union

Organizations

• Americans for Tax Reform
• Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance
• Protect My Ballot

Individuals

• Mary Anne Marsh - Political analyst

Arguments

• Paul Schlichtman, member of the Arlington Democratic Town Committee: "If we truly want to provide voters with choices, we need structural reforms to diminish the prospect of ballots full of uncontested races. ... A 'no' vote on this year’s ranked choice question will require advocates to build a coalition with proponents of other reforms designed to generate competitive elections. If the question is approved, we will not see meaningful reforms, but instead will get ranked choice in a state where 78 percent of the races are uncontested."
• Paul Craney, spokesman for Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance: "Runoff elections would work fine, where there would be a second election day and the highest two vote-getters would advance to that. That allows the voters the ability — which ranked-choice, or instant-runoff voting, doesn't allow you — to have an understanding of who the final two [candidates] are to make the determinations."
• Jennifer Braceras, director of Independent Women’s Law Center and board member of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance: "Frequently hailed as a way to give voters more choice and reduce polarization, ranked-choice voting is, in fact, a complex and confusing process that threatens to reduce voter participation and distort election outcomes. ... Massachusetts voters should be leery of complicated bureaucratic schemes that can reduce voter participation, increase opportunities for corruption, and lead to unforeseen, difficult-to-explain results."
• Anthony Amore, a volunteer with the No Ranked Choice Committee: "To think that a person could go into the ballot booth and choose up to seven of those people and be able to truly differentiate them, it’s hard to believe."
• Jeff Jacoby, columnist for the Boston Globe: "In essence, ranked-choice voting gives repeated mulligans to voters who back a loser, while penalizing voters who support just the candidate they prefer and refuse to rank candidates they know they don’t want. ... [E]lection procedures should be simple and readily understood. In Massachusetts, elections are won by the candidate who gets the most votes. It may not be a flawless system, but it won’t be improved by Question 2."
• Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker (R) and Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito (R): "At a time when we need to be promoting turnout and making it easier for voters to cast their ballots, we worry that Question 2 will add an additional layer of complication for both voters and election officials, while potentially delaying results and increasing the cost of elections. We believe the system we have now has served the Commonwealth well, and intend to vote 'no' on question two."

Official arguments

• Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance (Voter Guide): "Two Democratic Governors rejected ranked choice voting because it was confusing and denied voters informed choice. Democratic Governor Jerry Brown witnessed a mayoral election in Oakland where the winner won with voters’ seventh and eighth place rankings. Governor Brown said, 'Ranked-choice voting is overly complicated and confusing. I believe it deprives voters of genuinely informed choice.' Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom said Ranked Choice Voting 'has often led to voter confusion and the promise that ranked choice voting leads to greater democracy is not necessarily fulfilled.' Ranked Choice Voting ballots force voters to guess the candidates who will remain standing in multiple voting rounds and cast their votes in the dark. If they guess wrong and vote for eliminated candidates, their ballots are not counted in the final vote. Winners win a false 'majority' of remaining ballots, not a true majority of all the voters voting in the election."

Campaign finance

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

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Massachusetts ballot measures

Ballotpedia identified one ballot measure committee—Ranked Choice Voting 2020 Committee—registered in support of Question 2. The committee received $10.2 million in contributions. Ballotpedia identified one committee—No Ranked Choice Voting Committee 2020—registered in opposition to Question 2. It reported receiving $8,475.74 in contributions.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$9,999,910.57	$179,197.67	$10,179,108.24	$9,999,910.57	$10,179,108.24
Oppose	$8,475.74	$0.00	$8,475.74	$8,475.74	$8,475.74

Support

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

Committees in support of Question 2
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Ranked Choice Voting 2020 Committee	$9,999,910.57	$179,197.67	$10,179,108.24	$9,999,910.57	$10,179,108.24
Total	$9,999,910.57	$179,197.67	$10,179,108.24	$9,999,910.57	$10,179,108.24

Top donors

The following chart contains the top donors to the committee:

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Action Now Initiative	$3,526,000.00	$138,850.00	$3,664,850.00
Kathryn Murdoch	$2,500,000.00	$0.00	$2,500,000.00
Michael Porter	$450,000.00	$0.00	$450,000.00
Unite America	$445,000.00	$0.00	$445,000.00
Katherine Gehl	$250,050.00	$0.00	$250,050.00

Opposition

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

Committees in opposition to Question 2
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
No Ranked Choice Voting Committee 2020	$8,475.74	$0.00	$8,475.74	$8,475.74	$8,475.74
Total	$8,475.74	$0.00	$8,475.74	$8,475.74	$8,475.74

Top donors

The following chart contains the top donors to the committee:

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Gee Robert	$500.00	$0.00	$500.00
Steve Snider	$500.00	$0.00	$500.00
Kane Michael	$250.00	$0.00	$250.00
Westford Republican Town Committee	$250.00	$0.00	$250.00

Methodology

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

Media editorials

Support

The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

• Boston Globe Editorial Board: "The process would encourage a broader field of qualified candidates — including independent and third-party candidates — to run for office without fear of a 'spoiler' effect. And it would mean voters could cast ballots for candidates they truly favor rather than voting for a candidate they don’t much like in order to thwart an undesired outcome. [...] Ranked-choice voting could also change the nature of campaigning for the better. [...] Ranked-choice voting is not a cure-all for our ailing democracy — plenty needs to be done to rein in the influence of unlimited corporate spending, stop voter suppression, and boost election security. But with Question 2, Bay State voters can make our government far more representative of the will of the people."

Opposition

• The Eagle-Tribune and Gloucester Daily Times Editorial Boards: "Question 2 on the Massachusetts ballot, which proposes ranked choice voting, is confusing and unnecessary. ... When a voter puts an 'X' next to a candidate's name on a ballot, they're saying they believe that's the right person for the job – not that it might be the second, third or fourth best person. The top choice. There's no mystery and no confusion to that system, and it has worked for a long time. We believe residents should vote 'no' on Question 2 on Nov. 3."

Polls

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

Massachusetts Question 2, Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2020)
Poll	Support	Opposed	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
University of Massachusetts Amherst/WCVB Poll (Registered voters) 10/14/2020-10/21/2020	48%	43%	9%	+/-4.5	713
Ipsos poll (Adults) 10/7/2020-10/15/2020	45%	34%	21%	+/-3.5	1,001
MassInc Polling Group poll (Registered voters) 8/7/2020-8/8/2020	36%	36%	28%	+/-4.4	501
AVERAGES	43%	37.67%	19.33%	+/-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

See also: Ranked-choice voting (RCV)

Ranked-choice voting

A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority. This system is sometimes referred to as an instant runoff voting system.

How ranked-choice voting works

Broadly speaking, the ranked-choice voting process (sometimes referred to as instant runoff voting) unfolds as follows:

1. Voters rank the candidates for a given office by preference on their ballots.
2. If a candidate wins an outright majority of first-preference votes (i.e., 50 percent plus one), he or she will be declared the winner.
3. If, on the other hand, no candidates win an outright majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated.
4. All first-preference votes for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots.
5. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won an outright majority of the adjusted voters.
6. The process is repeated until a candidate wins a majority of votes cast.

Ranked-choice voting in the United States

As of April 2024, ranked-choice voting is used in a wide variety of states and localities across the United States. See the map, tables, and list below for further details. The numbers below do not include states where RCV is used by a political party for partisan primaries, or where military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots for runoff elections. For more information on these uses of RCV, see the table beneath the map below.

If you know of any additional U.S. localities using RCV that should be included here, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.

• RCV used statewide: Three states use RCV statewide. Alaska and Maine use RCV in federal and statewide elections. Hawaii uses RCV in certain statewide elections.
• RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities: Fourteen states contain localities that either use or are scheduled to begin using RCV in municipal elections.
• RCV authorized by state law, but not in use: Virginia is the only state where RCV is authorized by state law but is not currently in use, other than for a partisan primary.
• RCV prohibited: Six states have enacted legislation prohibiting the use of RCV in any elections.
• No laws addressing RCV, not in use: Twenty-seven states have no laws addressing RCV, and neither the state nor any localities in the state use it.

The map below shows which states use ranked-choice voting statewide or in some localities as of April 2024. It also shows the states where RCV is either prohibited or not addressed in the law. It does not show states where RCV is used by a political party for partisan primaries, or where military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots for runoff elections. See the table beneath the map for details on these uses of RCV.

Maine Question 5 (2016) and Question 1 (2018)

See also: Maine Question 5, Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2016) and Maine Question 1, Ranked-Choice Voting Delayed Enactment and Automatic Repeal Referendum (June 2018)

On November 8, 2016, voters approved a ballot initiative—Maine Question 5—to establish a first-in-the-nation statewide system of ranked-choice voting. Voters approved the initiative 52.12% to 47.88%. Support for the initiative was stronger in southern coastal Maine, whereas the counties along the state's northern border with Canada voted against the measure.

Question 5 defined ranked-choice voting as "the method of casting and tabulating votes in which voters rank candidates in order of preference, tabulation proceeds in sequential rounds in which last-place candidates are defeated and the candidate with the most votes in the final round is elected."

On October 23, 2017, the Maine State Legislature held a special legislative session and passed Legislative Document 1646 (LD 1646). LD 1646 was written to postpone and repeal ranked-choice voting (RCV) unless a constitutional amendment was passed before December 1, 2021, to enable the legislature to determine election methods.

The Committee for Ranked-Choice Voting, which supported Question 5 in 2016, filed a petition for a veto referendum to overturn LD 1646. The campaign collected a sufficient number of signatures to place the referendum on the ballot for June 12, 2018, as Question 1. About 54% of electors voted to repeal LD 1646, keeping most of the provisions of Question 5 as law.

New York City Ballot Question 1 (2019)

See also: Ballot Question 1 (2019)

New York City voters approved Ballot Question 1 in 2019, making New York City the most populous jurisdiction in the U.S. to approve the use of the ranked-choice voting election method. Question 1 provides for ranked-choice voting in primary and special elections for mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president, and city council members. It allows voters to rank in order of preference up to five candidates, including a write-in candidate. Before the measure, the city’s charter provided for plurality voting, also known as first-past-the-post, and run-off elections, depending on the office and type of election.

Alaska Ballot Measure 2 (2020)

See also: Alaska Ballot Measure 2 (2020)

The Alaska Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative was on the ballot in Alaska as an indirect initiated state statute on November 3, 2020. The initiative would make changes to Alaska's election policies, including:

• requiring persons and entities that contribute more than $2,000 that were themselves derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts to disclose the true sources (as defined in law) of the political contributions;
• replacing partisan primaries with open top-four primaries for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices; and
• establishing ranked-choice voting for general elections, including the presidential election, in which voters would rank the candidates.

Election policy on the ballot in 2020

In 2020, voters in 14 states voted on 18 ballot measures addressing election-related policies. One of the measures addressed campaign finance, one were related to election dates, five addressed election systems, three addressed redistricting, five addressed suffrage, and three addressed term limits.

Click Show to read details about the election-related measures on statewide ballots in 2020.

Election-related policy ballot measures in 2020

Campaign finance See also: Campaign finance on the ballot a Oregon Measure 107: Measure 107 authorizes the state legislature and local governments to (1) enact laws or ordinances limiting campaign contributions and expenditures; (2) require disclosure of contributions and expenditures; and (3) require that political advertisements identify the people or entities that paid for them. Going into the election, Oregon was one of five states with no limits on campaign contributions. Election dates a New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 2: The amendment allowed the state legislature to pass laws adjusting the election dates of state or county officeholders and adjusting office terms according to those date changes. Under the measure, laws proposing adjustments to election dates of non-statewide officeholders must be supported by a legislative finding that such a change would promote consistency or that it would evenly distribute the number of offices appearing on the ballot. Election systems a Alaska Ballot Measure 2: Ballot Measure 2 replaced the state's partisan primaries with open top-four primaries for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices and established ranked-choice voting for general elections, including the presidential election, in which voters would rank the candidates. Ballot Measure 2 also required persons and entities that contribute more than $2,000 that were themselves derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts to disclose the true sources, as defined in the law, of the political contributions. a Colorado Proposition 113: In 2019, the Colorado State Legislature passed a bill to add Colorado to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). NPVIC member states have agreed to give the state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote, provided the NPVIC goes into effect. The NPVIC was designed to go into effect if states representing at least 270 electoral votes join the NPVIC. The campaign Protect Colorado's Vote filed a veto referendum to overturn the law, which resulted in Proposition 113. On November 3, voters upheld the law and voted in favor of adding Colorado to the NPVIC. d Florida Amendment 3: Amendment 3 would have replaced Florida's closed primaries with top-two open primaries for elected state offices. Under Amendment 3, all candidates would have run in the same primary election. The top-two candidates, regardless of their partisan affiliation, would have moved on to the general election under Amendment 3. d Massachusetts Question 2: Question 2 would have enacted ranked-choice voting (RCV) for primary and general elections for state executive officials, state legislators, federal congressional representatives, and certain county offices. As of 2020, statewide elections in Massachusetts used a plurality voting system. a Mississippi Ballot Measure 2: As of 2020, Mississippi required that a candidate for governor or elected state office receive the most votes in a majority of the state's 122 state House of Representatives districts (known as the electoral vote requirement). Ballot Measure 2 repealed this requirement. Instead, Ballot Measure 2 provided that a candidate for governor or state office must receive a majority vote to win and that a runoff election would be held between the two highest vote-getters in the event that no candidate receives a majority vote. Redistricting See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot a Missouri Amendment 3: In 2018, Missouri voters approved Amendment 1, the Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative, which created the nonpartisan state demographer responsible for state legislative redistricting. Amendment 3 repealed the nonpartisan state demographer and returned the state to the use of bipartisan redistricting commissions, with changes to the number and selection of commissioners. The 2020 amendment also maintained the criteria of competitiveness and partisan fairness that was enacted in 2018, but it loosened the partisan fairness requirement and required that population, voter rights abridgment, contiguous districts, simple shapes, and the rules for counties be considered with a higher priority. a New Jersey Public Question 3: As of 2020, the New Jersey Constitution required the state legislative redistricting commission to pass a redistricting plan within a month of receiving the official census data. Question 3 postponed state legislative redistricting until after the election on November 2, 2021, should the state receive federal census data after February 15, 2021. The U.S. Census Bureau asked Congress to extend the deadline to deliver census data from April 1, 2021, to July 31, 2021, due to delays related to the coronavirus pandemic. a Virginia Question 1: Question 1 transferred the power to draw the state's congressional and legislative districts from the state legislature to a redistricting commission composed of state legislators and citizens. Going into 2020, the Virginia General Assembly was responsible for drawing the state's congressional and state legislative district boundaries. The redistricting plans were passed as legislation and subject to the governor's veto power. Suffrage See also: Suffrage on the ballot a Alabama Amendment 1: Amendment 1 amended the Alabama Constitution to state that "only a citizen of the United States," rather than "every citizen of the United States," who is 18 years old or older has the right to vote in Alabama. a California Proposition 17: Proposition 17 amended the state constitution to allow people with felonies who are on parole to vote; therefore, the ballot measure kept imprisonment as a disqualification for voting but removed parole status. Going into 2020, the California Constitution disqualified people with felonies from voting until the completion of their imprisonment and parole. d California Proposition 18: Proposition 18 would have allowed 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections. a Colorado Amendment 76: Amendment 76 amended the Colorado Constitution to state that “only a citizen”, instead of "every citizen", of the U.S. who is 18 years of age or older can vote in Colorado. Under the Colorado Votes Act, which went into effect in August 2019, individuals who are 17 years of age at the time of a primary election but who will be 18 years of age at the time of a general election were allowed to register to vote and vote in the primary election. According to the Colorado Blue Book, prevents 17-year-olds from voting. a Florida Amendment 1: Amendment 1 amended the Florida Constitution to state that “only a citizen” of the U.S. who is 18 years old or older can vote in Florida instead of saying that "every citizen" of the U.S. who is 18 years old or older can vote in Florida. Term limits and term lengths See also: Term limits on the ballot a Arkansas Issue 2: Issue 2 changed term limits of state legislators to twelve consecutive years with the opportunity to return after a four-year break. The 12-year limit applied to anyone elected in 2021 or after. Going into 2020, Arkansas legislators could serve up to 16 years throughout their lifetimes in the House or Senate. d Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 2: The amendment would have increased the office terms of commonwealth's attorneys from six years to eight years starting in 2030; increased the office terms of district judges from four years to eight years starting in 2022; and changed attorney licensing requirements for district judges from two years to eight years beginning in 2022. d Missouri Amendment 1: Amendment 1 would have limited the lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state auditor, and attorney general to two terms of office in a lifetime. Going into 2020, the state constitution limited the governor and state treasurer to two terms of office in a lifetime but not the other executive offices.

Local ranked choice voting measures in 2020

Voters in five cities in California, Colorado, and Minnesota voted on measures to establish ranked choice voting for certain municipal elections:

Local ranked choice voting measures, 2020
State	Measure	Offices	Outcome
California	Albany, California, Measure BB, Ranked Choice Voting Ordinance (November 2020)	City council and board of education
California	Eureka, California, Measure C, Ranked Choice Voting Charter Amendment (November 2020)	Mayor and city council
Colorado	Boulder, Colorado, Measure 2E, Ranked Choice Voting for Mayor Charter Amendment (November 2020)	Mayor
Minnesota	Bloomington, Minnesota, Question 3, Ranked Choice Voting Charter Amendment (November 2020)	Mayor and city council
Minnesota	Minnetonka, Minnesota, Question 1, Ranked Choice Voting Charter Amendment (November 2020)	Mayor and city council

In March 2020, voters in Portland, Maine, approved a local ranked choice voting measure.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Massachusetts

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 iniaitive

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 2 was filed with the office of Attorney General Maura Healey (D) on August 7, 2019.
• The initiative was cleared to circulate on September 4, 2019.
• The sponsors of Question 2 reported submitting 130,000 signatures to local registrars on November 20, 2019.
• The sponsors of the initiative submitted 111,268 signatures 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.
• On May 27, 2020, the campaign announced to supporters in an email that they had collected 17,084 raw signatures.
• On June 17, 2020, the campaign announced that it had submitted over 25,000 raw signatures for the second round of signature gathering. In the press release from Voter Choice Massachusetts, Cara Brown McCormick, a senior advisor to the campaign, said, “This was the first electronic signature drive to get a citizen’s initiative on the ballot in American history. Together we gathered signatures at a rate of one every two minutes for 40 days in a row, and were fortunate to be able to do the whole drive while keeping everyone safe.”
• On July 10, 2020, Voter Choice for Massachusetts, the committee leading the campaign in support of the initiative, announced that the initiative had been certified for the ballot. The Massachusetts Secretary of State reported that 17,512 signatures were valid of the 25,000 the campaign submitted.

To learn more about how the coronavirus pandemic impacted ballot measure campaigns, see the following: Changes to ballot measure campaigns, procedures, and policies in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020-2022

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 $230,500.00 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 $2.46.

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.

Benefits and risks of ranked-choice voting

The Center for State Policy and Analysis at Tufts University published a report in September 2020 that studied the benefits and risks of ranked-choice voting. The report concluded that ranked-choice voting would allow voters to express their feelings on every candidate by ranking them, and it would also increase civility among candidates as they appeal to a broader base of voters. The report also concluded that Massachusetts Question 2 is vulnerable to constitutional challenges as it has in Maine. Logistical hurdles, delayed results, and voter confusion were also identified as potential risks.

The full text of the report 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. 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 November 2022. 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. ”

External links

• Massachusetts 2020 Voter Guide
• Question 2 Full Text

Support

• Voter Choice Massachusetts campaign website
• Voter Choice Massachusetts Facebook page
• Voter Choice Massachusetts Twitter page

Opposition

• No on 2 campaign website
• No on 2 Facebook page

See also

2020 measures

• 2020 ballot measures
• Elections and campaigns on the ballot
• 2020 legislative sessions

Massachusetts

• Massachusetts ballot measures
• Massachusetts ballot measure laws
• Ranked-choice voting

News and analysis

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