14

Page 14 THE MALDEN ADVOCATE–Friday, October 16, 2026 Beacon Hill Roll Call Volume 51 - Report No. 41 October 5-9, 2026 By Bob Katzen THE HOUSE AND SENATE: There were no roll calls in the House or Senate last week. On November 3, or prior to that for voters who take advantage of early voting between October 17-30, all voters will have the opportunity to vote on nine ballot questions that will become law if approved by the majority of voters. To get on the ballot, the groups backing each ballot question were required to collect and submit at least 74,574 signatures last fall. The Legislature had until May 5, 2026 to act on the proposed law. The Legislature did not act on any of the proposals by the May 5 deadline. At which point supporters were required to collect another 12,429 signatures by July 1, in order to get their question on the ballot. All nine groups gathered sufficient signatures to get their question on the 2026 ballot. Although neither the House nor Senate voted on any of the nine proposals, the Committee on Initiative Petitions did hold public hearings on the questions. The committee eventually issued a majority report recommending that the Legislature take no action on each proposal. The Legislature never acted on the reports which were simply “placed on file,” where they died. Secretary of State Bill Galvin has issued an 88-page book via the U.S. mail and online with details about each question. If you would rather not read the entire 88-page book, Beacon Hill Roll Call continues its look at each ballot question over the next several weeks prior to the election. This week’s report includes Questions 4, 5 and 6. BALLOT QUESTION 4 – Here is a look at Question 4: QUESTION 4: THIS PROPOSED LAW WOULD PERMIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS TO REGISTER TO VOTE ON ELECTION DAY. This question asks voters if they approve of allowing an eligible individual to register to vote on Election Day by going to their polling place and presenting proof of residency and signing a written oath. Proof of residency could be a valid photo identification, or documentation showing the individual's name and the address where the individual resides, including a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, residential lease, wireless telephone statement, paycheck, current student fee statement or other document from a post-secondary school, or another government document or correspondence. The written oath would require the individual to certify that they are a citizen of the United States, are at least 18 years old, are not legally prohibited from voting, and have not and will not vote in the same election at another location. The oath would require the individual to acknowledge that providing false information is a felony punishable by not more than 5 years imprisonment or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. WHAT SUPPORTERS TOLD BEACON HILL ROLL CALL Norma Shulman, a spokesperson for “Yes on Election Day Registration” did not respond to repeated requests from Beacon Hill Roll Call asking her why voters should vote “Yes” on Question 4; why opponents are wrong and are they distorting the truth in their arguments; and how is the campaign for Question 4 going? Shulman did respond to Secretary of State Bill Galvin and her response was included in Gavin’s 88-page book. “A vote for Election Day Registration ensures our democracy is truly representative, secure and modern,” wrote Shulman. “Allowing voters to register at the polls will give thousands of citizens the chance to participate in important national elections. This policy especially helps those who move frequently, like young people and renters. This law provides maximum voter access with rigorous security safeguards. It is a common-sense reform that guarantees every eligible voice is heard.” WHAT OPPONENTS TOLD BEACON HILL ROLL CALL Amy Carnevale, a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Republican party, did not respond to repeated requests from Beacon Hill Roll Call asking her why voters should vote “No” on Question 4; why supporters are wrong and are they distorting the truth in their arguments; and how is the campaign for Question 4 going? Carnevale did respond to Secretary of State Bill Galvin and her response was included in Gavin’s 88-page book. “The public welfare demands that elections be protected from fraud,” wrote Carnevale. “Sameday voter registration prejudices that welfare by eliminating the advance period during which election officials can examine a registrant's identity, residence, eligibility or duplicate registration before a ballot is issued. Instead, officials would be required to make those determinations at the polling place, under substantial time pressure and amid the extraordinary demands of Election Day. Errors, false statements or conflicting records that escape detection may not be discovered until after the ballot has been cast and commingled with all others, when it can no longer be identified or withdrawn. WHAT YOUR VOTE DOES: A “Yes” vote would allow Election Day voter registration. A “No” vote would make no changes to the laws governing voter registration. BALLOT QUESTION 5 – Here is a look at Question 5: QUESTION 5: THIS PROPOSED LAW WOULD LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE THESTATE CAN COLLECT EACH YEAR AND PROVIDE THAT THE EXCESS AMOUNT, ABOVE THAT LIMIT, BE REFUNDED TO TAXPAYERS. This question asks voters if they approve of limiting state revenue in a given year to the net amount of state revenue from the prior year, increased by a rate equal to the average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts over the most recent three years. If revenue collected by the state exceeds the limit, the excess amount would be refunded to taxpayers the following year. WHAT SUPPORTERS TOLD BEACON HILL ROLL CALL “Massachusetts families are facing a real affordability challenge,” said Chris Keohane, a spokesperson for Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts. “Housing, food, childcare, energy and other everyday costs continue to put pressure on household budgets. At the same time, state tax revenues have grown dramatically. Since 2010 our state budget has grown more than two times the rate of wage increases and 2.5 times the rate of inflation. This is unsustainable -- particularly with stagnant job growth and a resident leaving our state every 11 minutes and 38 seconds. At a time when people are struggling, now is the time to put money directly back in people’s pockets.” Keohane continued, “Opponents insist this is a budget cut which it clearly is not. This simply limits how much we can grow revenue year to year. Furthermore, their position that this benefits the wealthy is patently false. Under a 2023 change in Massachusetts law, refunds are required to be distributed equally among eligible taxpayers. The proposed ballot measure does not change that. We are excited with the direction of the campaign. Every public poll has shown us with a significant lead and the interactions we have with voters reflects it. We have been doing dozens of regional forums, interviews and meetings. In each one, the response has been phenomenal because people want money back in their pockets.” WHAT OPPONENTS TOLD BEACON HILL ROLL CALL "As voters learn about the negative consequences Question 5 would have for Massachusetts, they're increasingly seeing through the spin from the anti-government multi-millionaires who paid to put Question 5 on the ballot,” said Andrew Farnitano, a spokesperson for Protect Massachusetts’ Future. “Question 5's reckless revenue limit would force repeated cuts to state and local public services, leading to layoffs for teachers, nurses and firefighters.” Farnitano continued, “Occasional tax rebates won't make up for the fact that Question 5 would make healthcare, childcare and housing more expensive for Massachusetts families. Question 5 would give repeated tax rebates to the rich while the rest of us suffer the pain of BHRC| SEE PAGE 16

15 Publizr Home