Top Beacon Hill Democrats raised concerns Monday about special interest groups that are pushing potential voter referendums to bypass the traditional legislative process, and one criticized a popular initiative petition to bring back rent control.
Attorney General Andrea Campbell certified 44 potential questions earlier this year, and at least 10 campaigns said they cleared a hefty signature-gathering requirement last week on the road to the 2026 ballot. Most campaigns said they deployed paid signature gatherers, though Homes for All Massachusetts — the coalition behind the rent stabilization measure — did not.
House Speaker Ron Mariano said ballot questions came up during Monday’s private meeting with Senate President Karen Spilka, Gov. Maura Healey, and Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll. Asked whether any specific ballot questions stand out to him, Mariano told reporters, “We’re concerned about all of them.”
“Forty-four of them is a huge number of ballot questions. It makes you wonder: How easy is it for these special interest groups to go out and pay someone to get signatures?” Mariano said. “They design questions that support their topics or their personal interests.”
The ballot questions moving forward look to subject the Legislature and Healey’s office to the public records law, reduce the state’s personal income tax rate, impose a state revenue cap, and overhaul the Legislature’s stipend system, among other measures.
“It really makes me wonder: Are we becoming California, where you go out and get some money because there are very few financial restrictions on some of these special interest groups?” Mariano continued.
Lawmakers can choose to address the petitions themselves, yet they often leave the decisions to voters. Mariano, pressed on whether he plans to negotiate with some of the campaigns, said it’s “too soon to see which one of these are real” and reiterated he’s “bothered” by the “sheer number” of questions.
Spilka said she believes that special interest groups are driving “a lot” of the possible questions.
“Sometimes they are presented as grassroots, but when you look behind the curtain and see who is paying for the signatures, it is specific groups,” the Ashland Democrat said. “And I think that that just needs to be more transparent so people can see behind the curtain.”
After a reporter informed Mariano that the rent stabilization campaign did not use paid signature gathers, the Quincy Democrat said he wants to see who secured those signatures. Homes for All Massachusetts said it collected more than 124,000 raw signatures.
Two years ago, supporters failed to get enough signatures to overturn the 1994 voter law that banned rent control.
“They had a statewide election on it,” Mariano said. Spokesperson Ana Vivas later confirmed he was referencing the vote that occurred 31 years ago.
“We had a vote on it,” Mariano continued. “What has been the barrier for them finding out that people just don’t support it?”
Vivas said the House in 2020 rejected a Rep. Mike Connolly economic development bill amendment that sought to allow local-option rent control.
“I think the people who elected the members of the House told their representatives that they didn’t support it,” Mariano added when asked to clarify who opposes rent control. “You had a whole statewide initiative that wasn’t supported. So I think it’s evidence that there are people in Massachusetts who just don’t support it, who don’t see it as a solution to the housing crisis. It’s not going to spur any construction or any investment in new housing.”
Rent control supporters say housing production is not occurring at a pace needed to bring down rents.
Ballot question supporters must file signatures with Secretary of State Bill Galvin’s office next Wednesday as the next step in the initiative petition process.
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
©2025 Cox Media Group
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/cmg/7QOJU3BNCJERBNKJC5LWTBYFLU.png)
