Massachusetts Question 4, Legalization and Regulation of Psychedelic Substances Initiative (2024)

Massachusetts Question 4
Election date November 5, 2024
Topic Drug crime policy
Status dDefeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

Massachusetts Question 4, the Legalization and Regulation of Psychedelic Substances Initiative, was on the ballot in Massachusetts as an indirect initiated state statute on November 5, 2024. The ballot measure was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported this initiative to: create a Natural Psychedelic Substances Commission and Advisory Board to regulate the licensing of psychedelic substances and services, including the administration of psychedelic substances to individuals 21 years of age or older under licensed supervision; authorize individuals 21 years of age or older to grow, possess, and use a personal amount of psychedelic substances; impose an excise tax at a rate of 15% on the sale of psychedelic substances at licensed administration facilities, and authorize localities to levy an additional tax of up to 2% on psychedelic substances and regulate the time, place, and manner of the operation of natural psychedelic substance licensees.

A "no" vote opposed this initiative to provide regulated access to certain psychedelic substances and authorize the personal use of limited amounts of psychedelics by individuals 21 years of age or older.

Election results

See also: Results for marijuana and psychedelics ballot measures, 2024

Massachusetts Question 4
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,444,812	43.16%
No		1,902,527	56.84%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What would Question 4 have done?

See also: Measure design

Question 4 would have authorized the newly created Natural Psychedelic Substances Commission and Advisory Board to adopt regulations for the licensing of psychedelic substances and services. The initiative would have required the following license categories:

• a psychedelic therapy center license,
• a facilitator license,
• a cultivation, processing, or sales-only license, and
• a testing license.

The commission and the advisory board would also have been required to adopt regulations related to holding preparation, administration, and integration sessions; health and safety warnings provided before administration; educational materials provided before services; safety screening provided by a facilitator before a participant completed a session; health forms; proper supervision during administration; group administration sessions; testing natural psychedelic substances; standards for advertising and marketing; insurance requirements; and age verification.

Question 4 would have also authorized individuals 21 years of age or older to grow, possess, and use natural psychedelic substances. The initiative would have defined natural psychedelic substances as "substances from a plant or fungus and any plant, fungus, or preparation containing those substances: (1) Dimethyltryptamine; (2) Mescaline; (3) Ibogaine; (4) Psilocybin; or (5) Psilocyn." Individuals would have been allowed to grow the plants or fungi as long as the area did not exceed 12 feet by 12 feet and was secured from access by persons 21 years of age or younger.

As of 2024, psychedelic substances were classified as Schedule I controlled substances under state law.

Have other states decided on similar measures?

See also: Decriminalization of psilocybin in the United States

In 2020, Oregon voters approved Measure 109, which authorized the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) to create a program to permit licensed service providers to administer psilocybin-producing mushroom and fungi products to individuals 21 years of age or older. Measure 109 allowed cities and counties to place referendums on local ballots to prohibit or allow psilocybin-product manufacturers or psilocybin service centers in unincorporated areas within their jurisdictions.

In 2022, Colorado voters approved Proposition 122, which decriminalized the personal use, possession, growth, and transport of natural medicines for persons 21 years old and older and created the Regulated Natural Medicine Access Program for licensed healing centers to administer natural medicine services.

Who supported and opposed Question 4?

see also: Support and Opposition

Massachusetts for Mental Health Options led the campaign in support of Question 4. The initiative was endorsed by New Approach Advocacy Fund and Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps. Emily Oneschuk, Massachusetts for Mental Health Options' grassroots outreach director and a U.S. Navy veteran, said, "Plant based therapeutics are the most effective treatment I have seen for veterans struggling with mental health challenges after service."

Coalition for Safe Communities led the campaign in opposition to Question 4. Chris Keohan, a spokesperson for Coalition for Safe Communities, said, "We are not opposed … advocating against the medicinal properties of this, but this goes way too far way too quickly, and doesn’t address any of the real concerns that public safety advocates have as well as mental health professionals."

Measure design

See also: Text of measure

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of the initiative.

Natural Psychedelic Substances Commission and Advisory Board: Authorization and membership

Question 4 would have created the Natural Psychedelic Substances Commission consisting of five commissioners:

• one appointed by the governor with a background in psychedelic research and science;
• one appointed by the attorney general with a background in public safety;
• one appointed by the treasurer with experience in corporate management, finance, or securities; and
• two appointed by the majority vote of the governor, attorney general, and treasurer, with one having experience in oversight or industry management and one *with experience related to Indigenous or traditional uses of psychedelic substances.
• The commissioners would have served five-year terms, with no commissioner serving more than 10 years. The initiative would have also provided a process for removing and filling vacancies on the commission. It would have authorized the commission to appoint an executive director, who would appoint a chief financial and accounting officer and employ other employees, consultants, or legal counsel subject to approval by the commission.

Question 4 would have also created a Natural Psychedelic Substances Advisory Board to study and make recommendations to the commission on the regulation and taxation of natural psychedelic substances. The advisory board would have included:

• the executive director of the commission,
• the secretary of health and human services,
• the commissioner of revenue,
• the commissioner of public health,
• the colonel of the state police,
• five members appointed by the governor with expertise in mental or behavioral health, natural psychedelic substance therapy, issues confronting veterans, program evaluation, and Indigenous uses of natural psychedelic substances,
• five members appointed by the attorney general with expertise in health care insurance, emergency medical services or first responders, mycology and natural psychedelic substance cultivation, training psychedelic-assisted facilitators, and Indigenous uses of natural psychedelic substances,
• five members appointed by the treasurer with expertise in harm reduction, municipal psychedelic policy, natural psychedelic substance research, peer recovery or peer support training, and Indigenous uses of natural psychedelic substances.
• The advisory board would have been responsible for advising the commission on rules and regulations related to the use of psychedelic substances.

Natural Psychedelic Substances Tax: Tax rate and revenue allocation

Question 4 would have authorized the state to impose an excise tax on the sale of natural psychedelic substances to anyone other than a natural psychedelic substance licensee at a rate of 15% of the sales price in addition to the state's sales tax. Question 4 would have also authorized local governments to impose a local sales tax on the sale or transfer of psychedelic substances at a rate not greater than 2% of the sales price. The revenue from the state excise tax would have been deposited into the Natural Psychedelic Substances Regulation Fund. The local excise tax revenue would have been given to the localities in proportion to the amount collected by each.

The Natural Psychedelic Substances Regulation Fund would also have received any funds from licensing applications, fines enforced for violation of the act, and interest earned on the account. Question 4 would have authorized the state legislature to appropriate the funds to implement and enforce the act.

Regulated access to psychedelic substances: Licensing and regulation

Question 4 would have authorized the commission and advisory board to adopt regulations for the licensing of psychedelic substances and services. The initiative would have required the following license categories:

• a psychedelic therapy center license,
• a facilitator license,
• a cultivation, processing, or sales-only license, and
• a testing license.

The commission would have been authorized to suspend or revoke a license for violating adopted regulations.

The commission and the advisory board would also have been required to adopt regulations related to holding preparation, administration, and integration sessions; health and safety warnings provided before administration; educational materials provided before services; safety screening provided by a facilitator before a participant completed a session; health forms; proper supervision during administration; group administration sessions; testing natural psychedelic substances; standards for advertising and marketing; insurance requirements; and age verification.

Question 4 would have also authorized localities to regulate the time, place, and manner of the operation of natural psychedelic substance licensees. However, the initiative would not have allowed localities to completely prohibit the operation of licensees.

The act would have taken effect on December 15, 2024, with the commission expected to begin accepting license applications by September 30, 2026.

Personal use of psychedelic substances: Authorized use and amount

Question 4 would have authorized individuals 21 years of age or older to grow, possess, and use natural psychedelic substances. The initiative would have defined natural psychedelic substances as "substances from a plant or fungus and any plant, fungus or preparation containing those substances: (1) Dimethyltryptamine; (2) Mescaline; (3) Ibogaine; (4) Psilocybin; or (5) Psilocyn." Individuals would have been allowed to grow the plants or fungi as long as the area did not exceed 12 feet by 12 feet and was secured from access by persons 21 years of age or younger. Individuals 21 years of age or older would have been permitted to possess personal use amount of a psychedelic substance, which meant:

• one gram of dimethyltryptamine,
• 18 grams of mescaline,
• 30 grams of ibogaine,
• one gram of psilocybin, and
• one gram of psilocyn.
• If an individual did not secure the substances from persons younger than 21 years of age or possessed more than the authorized personal amount but not more than double, the individual would have had to forfeit the psychedelic substance and pay a fine of up to $100. Question 4 would have also prohibited the consumption of psychedelic substances in public places, with violations subject to a fine of up to $100.

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 before May 1, 2024?

”

Ballot summary

The final ballot summary for Question 4 was as follows.

“

This proposed law would allow persons aged 21 and older to grow, possess, and use certain natural psychedelic substances in certain circumstances. The psychedelic substances allowed would be two substances found in mushrooms (psilocybin and psilocyn) and three substances found in plants (dimethyltryptamine, mescaline, and ibogaine). These substances could be purchased at an approved location for use under the supervision of a licensed facilitator. This proposed law would otherwise prohibit any retail sale of natural psychedelic substances. This proposed law would also provide for the regulation and taxation of these psychedelic substances. This proposed law would license and regulate facilities offering supervised use of these psychedelic substances and provide for the taxation of proceeds from those facilities’ sales of psychedelic substances. It would also allow persons aged 21 and older to grow these psychedelic substances in a 12-foot by 12-foot area at their home and use these psychedelic substances at their home. This proposed law would authorize persons aged 21 or older to possess up to one gram of psilocybin, one gram of psilocyn, one gram of dimethyltryptamine, 18 grams of mescaline, and 30 grams of ibogaine (“personal use amount”), in addition to whatever they might grow at their home, and to give away up to the personal use amount to a person aged 21 or over. This proposed law would create a Natural Psychedelic Substances Commission of five members appointed by the Governor, Attorney General, and Treasurer which would administer the law governing the use and distribution of these psychedelic substances. The Commission would adopt regulations governing licensing qualifications, security, recordkeeping, education and training, health and safety requirements, testing, and age verification. This proposed law would also create a Natural Psychedelic Substances Advisory Board of 20 members appointed by the Governor, Attorney General, and Treasurer which would study and make recommendations to the Commission on the regulation and taxation of these psychedelic substances. This proposed law would allow cities and towns to reasonably restrict the time, place, and manner of the operation of licensed facilities offering psychedelic substances, but cities and towns could not ban those facilities or their provision of these substances. The proceeds of sales of psychedelic substances at licensed facilities would be subject to the state sales tax and an additional excise tax of 15 percent. In addition, a city or town could impose a separate tax of up to two percent. Revenue received from the additional state excise tax, license application fees, and civil penalties for violations of this proposed law would be deposited in a Natural Psychedelic Substances Regulation Fund and would be used, subject to appropriation, for administration of this proposed law. Using the psychedelic substances as permitted by this proposed law could not be a basis to deny a person medical care or public assistance, impose discipline by a professional licensing board, or enter adverse orders in child custody cases absent clear and convincing evidence that the activities created an unreasonable danger to the safety of a minor child. This proposed law would not affect existing laws regarding the operation of motor vehicles while under the influence, or the ability of employers to enforce workplace policies restricting the consumption of these psychedelic substances by employees. This proposed law would allow property owners to prohibit the use, display, growing, processing, or sale of these psychedelic substances on their premises. State and local governments could continue to restrict the possession and use of these psychedelic substances in public buildings or at schools. This proposed law would take effect on December 15, 2024.

”

Full text

Initiative #23-13:

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2024

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 state wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 11, and the FRE is 59. The word count for the ballot title is 24.

The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 18, and the FRE is 20. The word count for the ballot summary is 578.

Support

Massachusetts for Mental Health Options led the campaign in support of the initiative.

Supporters

Corporations

• Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps

Organizations

• New Approach Advocacy Fund
• Progressive Massachusetts

Arguments

• Emily Oneschuk, Massachusetts for Mental Health Options' grassroots outreach director and a U.S. Navy veteran: "Plant based therapeutics are the most effective treatment I have seen for veterans struggling with mental health challenges after service."
• Lieutenant Sarko Gergerian, Mental Health Counselor (MHC) Massachusetts for Mental Health Options: "Vote YES on 4 to provide safe, regulated access to promising natural psychedelic medicines for treatment-resistant PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Psychedelics will be available in approved therapeutic settings under the supervision of trained and licensed facilitators, NOT sold in stores to take home. Research from leading medical institutions including Mass General Brigham, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, and Johns Hopkins shows that psychedelic medicines can be effective treatments for depression and anxiety. In fact, the FDA recently granted psilocybin a “breakthrough therapy” designation. For many people who are suffering, daily medications and other standard treatments aren’t working. Over 6,000 veterans die by suicide annually, and countless more struggle from service-related trauma. Natural psychedelic medicine can also offer patients with a terminal diagnosis relief from end-of-life anxiety and help them find peace. That’s why question 4 is supported by doctors, mental health providers, and veteran advocates. Vote YES to expand mental health options.”

Opposition

Coalition for Safe Communities led the campaign in opposition to Question 4.

Arguments

• Chris Keohan, a spokesperson for Coalition for Safe Communities: "We are not opposed … advocating against the medicinal properties of this, but this goes way too far way too quickly, and doesn’t address any of the real concerns that public safety advocates have as well as mental health professionals."
• Dr. Anahita Dua Surgeon, Massachusetts General Hospital Associate Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School Coalition For Safe Communities: "Question 4 would decriminalize psychedelics, open forprofit centers, allow for growth in a 12-foot by 12-foot area in homes and distribution statewide. A black market is inevitable with this amount of home growth. • In recent years, driver’s license revocations for drugged driving rose 65% and fatal DUI crashes increased over 50%. With 1 in 3 frequent psychedelic users reporting driving under the influence of psychedelics in the past year, this will increase. • The psychedelic ibogaine has life-threatening cardiotoxicity, heart failure can occur days after one dose. • Accidental consumption of edibles is especially dangerous to children and pets. • The centers aren’t required to be run by medical professionals, cannot provide critical care during adverse reactions, and aren’t prohibited from giving psychedelics to high-risk patients like those with schizophrenia, bipolar illness, and pregnant or breastfeeding women.”

Campaign finance

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2024.

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Massachusetts ballot measures

One committee registered in support of Question 4—Massachusetts for Mental Health Options. One committee registered in opposition to Question 4—Coalition for Safe Communities.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$7,750,153.01	$475,001.02	$8,225,154.03	$7,598,888.11	$8,073,889.13
Oppose	$136,775.00	$0.00	$136,775.00	$128,802.90	$128,802.90
Total	$7,886,928.01	$475,001.02	$8,361,929.03	$7,727,691.01	$8,202,692.03

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot measure.

Committees in support of Question 4
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Massachusetts for Mental Health Options	$7,750,153.01	$475,001.02	$8,225,154.03	$7,598,888.11	$8,073,889.13
Total	$7,750,153.01	$475,001.02	$8,225,154.03	$7,598,888.11	$8,073,889.13

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in support of the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
All One God Faith Inc.	$1,350,000.00	$0.00	$1,350,000.00
Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies	$550,000.01	$0.00	$550,000.01
Blake Mycoskie	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
Dharmesh Shah	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
Austin Hearst	$450,000.00	$0.00	$450,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the ballot measure.

Committees in opposition to Question 4
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Coalition for Safe Communities	$136,775.00	$0.00	$136,775.00	$128,802.90	$128,802.90
Total	$136,775.00	$0.00	$136,775.00	$128,802.90	$128,802.90

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in opposition to the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
SAM Action, Inc.	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Robert Pereira	$5,000.00	$0.00	$5,000.00
Jennifer Nassour	$1,000.00	$0.00	$1,000.00
Michael Holt Massey	$1,000.00	$0.00	$1,000.00
Carl Garrett	$100.00	$0.00	$100.00

Media editorials

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

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

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at editor@ballotpedia.org

Opposition

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

• Sentinel & Enterprise Editorial Board: "Question 4 calls for no legal action against adults ages 21 and older for 'possessing, using, processing, or testing not more than a personal use amount of a natural psychedelic substance,' and allows home-grown plants or fungi cultivated for psychedelic substances, as long as they are in an area secured from minors. If passed, this ballot initiative would legalize both the medicinal and personal use of certain psychedelics — something that wasn’t even contemplated by supporters of legalizing marijuana. Recreational marijuana was only approved after first studying the effects of pot’s use for medicinal purposes. That’s the same course therapeutic psychedelics should take."

Polls

See also: 2024 ballot measure polls

Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Massachusetts Question 4, Legalization and Regulation of Psychedelic Substances Initiative (2024)
Poll	Dates	Sample size	Margin of error	Support	Oppose	Undecided

Emerson College Polling/WHDH	10/24/2024-10/26/2024	1,000 RV	± 3.0%	50%	44%	6%
	Question: "Would you vote yes or no on Massachusetts Question 4, which would allow persons over age 21 to use certain natural psychedelic substances under licensed supervision and to grow and possess limited quantities of those substances in their home, and would create a commission to regulate those substances?"

University of Massachusetts Amherst/WCVB	10/03/2024-10/10/2024	700 RV	± 4.8%	43%	43%	14%
	Question: "Question 4 - would allow persons 21 and older to purchase and use natural psychedelic substances found in mushrooms and plants (i.e. psilocybin, mescaline, ibogaine, etc.) at approved locations under the supervision of a licensed facilitator; would allow persons 21 and older to grow and possess a limited quantity of these substances in their homes; and would create a state commission to regulate the use and distribution of these substances. The measure would establish a 15% state excise tax for the sale of these substances and would also allow local governments to impose a sales tax on these substances."

WBUR & CommonWealth Beacon Poll	09/12/2024-09/18/2024	800 LV	± 4.1%	42%	44%	14%
	Question: "There will be a question on the November 2024 ballot in Massachusetts regarding natural psychedelic substances. A yes vote would allow persons over age 21 to use certain natural psychedelic substances under licensed supervision and to grow and possess limited quantities of those substances in their home, and would create a commission to regulate those substances. A no vote would make no change to existing law. If the election were held today, how would you vote on this proposal?"

Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.

Background

FDA research on medical use of psilocybin

The Food and Drug Administration allowed for research on psychedelic agents in 1992. Clinical research has explored potential treatment effects of psilocybin on conditions such as depression, anxiety disorders, suicidality, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and addiction. The authors of the meta-analysis concluded that "it appears psilocybin may have some efficacy as an alternative agent to manage mental health conditions." They also stated that "there are multiple limitations to these studies. Many of them are small and are not able to be applied to larger populations. Additionally, because of the CSA Schedule I nature of psilocybin, it was administered under very controlled conditions."

In 2019, the FDA designated psilocybin therapy as breakthrough therapy for two clinical trials being facilitated by Compass Pathways and Usona Institute studying the effects of psilocybin on severe depression and major depressive disorder. The FDA defines the designation, breakthrough therapy, as "a process designed to expedite the development and review of drugs that are intended to treat a serious condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over available therapy on a clinically significant endpoint(s)."

DEA classification and stated effects of psilocybin

See also: Healthcare policy in the United States

As of 2024, psilocybin was classified as a Schedule I drug by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). According to the DEA, Schedule I drugs are not approved for medical use and have a high potential for abuse and dependence. The DEA's website listed the following as effects caused by psilocybin use:

“	Hallucinations Large amounts can cause panic attacks and psychosis Nausea and vomiting Muscle weakness, lack of coordination Overdose may result in psychosis or death	”
—Drug Enforcement Administration

Decriminalization of psilocybin in the United States

Statewide:

Colorado

In November of 2022, Colorado voters approved a ballot initiative, Proposition 122, that defined certain psychedelic plants and fungi as natural medicine, including dimethyltryptamine (DMT); ibogaine; mescaline (excluding peyote); psilocybin; and psilocyn; decriminalized the personal use, possession, growth, and transport of natural medicines for persons 21 years old and older; and created the Regulated Natural Medicine Access Program for licensed healing centers to administer natural medicine services. It was approved with 53.64% of the vote.

Oregon

In November of 2020, Oregon voters approved a ballot initiative, Measure 109, that authorized the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) to create a program to permit licensed service providers to administer psilocybin-producing mushroom and fungi products to individuals 21 years of age or older. Measure 109 allowed cities and counties to place referendums on local ballots to prohibit or allow psilocybin-product manufacturers or psilocybin service centers in unincorporated areas within their jurisdictions. Measure 109 was approved by 55.75% of voters. At the same election, Oregon voters approved Measure 110, which removed criminal penalties for the possession of LSD (less than 40 units) and psilocybin (less than 12 grams), as well as other specified quantities of certain controlled substances.

Local

As of February 2024, 26 local jurisdictions had decriminalized psilocybin possession or, more frequently, deprioritized policing, prosecution, and arrest for possession of psilocybin. Three jurisdictions did so through the citizen initiative process and 23 did so through local government resolutions, including seven cities in Massachusetts:

Jurisdiction	Year	Measure	Yes	No
Denver, Colorado	2019	Initiative: Initiated Ordinance 301	50.64%	49.36%
Washington, D.C.	2020	Initiative: Measure 81	76.18%	23.82%
Oakland, California	2020	City council resolution	N/A	N/A
Santa Cruz, California	2020	City council resolution	N/A	N/A
Ann Arbor, Michigan	2020	City council resolution	N/A	N/A
Whashtenaw County, Michigan	2021	County council resolution	N/A	N/A
Detroit, Michigan	2021	Initiative: Proposal E	61.08%	38.92%
Somerville, Massachusetts	2021	City council resolution	N/A	N/A
Cambridge, Massachusetts	2021	City council resolution	N/A	N/A
Northampton, Massachusetts	2021	City council resolution	N/A	N/A
Easthampton, Massachusetts	2021	City council resolution	N/A	N/A
Seattle, Washington	2021	City council resolution	N/A	N/A
Port Townsend, Washington	2021	City council resolution	N/A	N/A
Arcata, California	2021	City council resolution	N/A	N/A
Hazel Park, Michigan	2022	City council resolution	N/A	N/A
San Francisco, California	2022	City council resolution	N/A	N/A
Ferndale, Michigan	2023	City council resolution	N/A	N/A
Berkeley, California	2023	City council resolution	N/A	N/A
Eureka, California	2023	City council resolution	N/A	N/A
Portland, Maine	2023	City council resolution	N/A	N/A
Provincetown, Massachusetts	2023	City council resolution	N/A	N/A
Salem, Massachusetts	2023	City council resolution	N/A	N/A
Minneapolis, Minnesota	2023	Mayoral executive order	N/A	N/A
Jefferson County, Washington	2023	County ordinance	N/A	N/A
Medford, Massachusetts	2024	City council resolution	N/A	N/A
Ypsilanti, Michigan	2024	City council resolution	N/A	N/A

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Massachusetts

The state process

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 2024 ballot:

• Signatures required (first round): 74,574 signatures
• Signatures required (second round): 12,429 signatures
• Deadline (first round): The deadline to submit the first round of signatures to the secretary of state was December 6, 2023. Signatures needed to be submitted to local registrars by November 22, 2023.
• Deadline (second round): The deadline to submit the second round of signatures was July 3, 2024.

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 initiative

• Danielle McCourt filed multiple versions of the initiative (#23-13-#23-14).
• On September 6, 2023, both versions of the initiative were cleared for signature gathering.
• On October 27, 2023, the Boston Globe reported that the campaign announced it had collected enough valid signatures to submit to the secretary of state's office on December 6.
• On November 22, 2023, Politico reported the campaign had submitted signatures to local registrars.
• On December 6, 2023, the Boston Herald reported that Massachusetts for Mental Health Options submitted more than 95,000 signatures to the secretary of state's office.
• On January 3, 2024, the secretary of state reported that the campaign filed 96,277 valid signatures.
• The state legislature did not pass the initiative by the May 1 deadline. The campaign was cleared to gather a second round of signatures.
• On July 3, the campaign turned in 13,073 valid signatures for the second round of collection.
• On July 10, the secretary of state announced that the campaign had qualified for the ballot.

Sponsors of the measure hired The Outreach Team to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $3,560,850.00 was spent to collect the 87,003 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $40.93.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Massachusetts

See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in Massachusetts.

How to vote 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

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. As of January 2025, six states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, and New Hampshire — had passed laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration. However, only two of those states' laws were in effect, in Arizona and New Hampshire. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allowed noncitizens to vote in some local elections as of November 2024. 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

2024 measures

• 2024 ballot measures
• Drug crime policy on the ballot
• 2024 petition deadlines

Massachusetts

• Massachusetts ballot measures
• Massachusetts initiative laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls
• Ballot measure signature costs

External links

• Massachusetts 2024 ballot initiatives