Massachusetts voters will have an opportunity this year to consider Question 3, a proposed electoral reform aimed at increasing competition in the state’s elections, which have long been marked by a lack of contested races. According to the secretary of state’s office, only 57 of 200 legislative races are currently contested, with most incumbents running unopposed. Similar trends appear in district attorney races, where only two of 11 contests feature more than one candidate. This pattern places Massachusetts among the states with the lowest levels of electoral competition nationwide.

Question 3 proposes replacing the existing primary election system—which holds separate Democratic and Republican primaries on the same day, with winners advancing to the general election—with a unified primary that includes all candidates regardless of party affiliation. In this "all-party" primary, the top two finishers would move on to the general election in November. Unlike nonpartisan municipal elections, candidates’ party affiliations would still be displayed on the ballot, and endorsements from major or minor parties could be included. This system bears similarities to procedures currently used in cities such as Boston but adds the element of party identification.

Supporters argue that this reform will bolster democracy by encouraging more candidates to run and expanding voter choice. Critics point out that the Republican Party’s diminished presence in many districts leaves few contested races, often depriving voters of alternatives. Advocates maintain that competition should not depend on the GOP’s ability to field candidates and that the open primary system would provide a path for other candidates—including unenrolled voters, a group representing the largest share of Massachusetts’ electorate—to increase their participation.

The proposal aims to also simplify the process for candidates to qualify for the primary ballot. Currently, candidates for offices like governor must secure at least 15 percent support at their party’s state convention to appear on the ballot—a threshold that would be removed under Question 3, allowing all qualified candidates to compete.

The initiative has garnered endorsements from both recent Massachusetts governors, Republican Charlie Baker and Democrat Deval Patrick. Governor Maura Healey has not publicly stated a position.

States including California and Washington have implemented similar all-party primary systems, reporting increased competition and indications that candidates moderate their platforms to appeal to a broader electorate. However, opponents raise concerns about potential drawbacks. The primary would require candidates to run two campaigns—once in the all-party primary and once in the general election—potentially increasing campaign costs, although candidates in the current system face similar demands when primaries are contested.

There is also the possibility that two candidates from the same party could advance to the general election, potentially excluding the other major party in certain districts. While this outcome has occurred only rarely, it is viewed by proponents as addressing the lack of meaningful competition that currently exists in many areas.

Some critics worry that the passage of Question 3 might dampen momentum for other reforms such as ranked-choice voting, which voters in Massachusetts rejected six years ago. Supporters argue that the two systems are compatible, referencing Alaska’s use of both an all-party primary and ranked-choice voting.

Passing Question 3 would mark a significant move toward increasing electoral choices for Massachusetts voters by addressing structural barriers that have contributed to the state’s notably low levels of competition in elections.