"Question 3 turns the primary into a contest over who has the biggest bankroll, not the most grassroots support. Candidates with wealthy backers, or personal fortunes, start with a lead that grassroots campaigns would need to spend months closing. But with everyone in the same primary, first-time, working-class and candidates of color are more likely to get locked out due to fear of being a spoiler for their party. We saw this in California this year, as party insiders publicly and privately pressured some to drop out early, cutting the legs from under campaigns that need time to grow. Massachusetts deserves better than handing over our public offices to the highest bidder."

"Massachusetts elections should focus on improving the lives of working families and individuals, not on the special interests of private equity millionaires and billionaires willing to write six- or seven-figure checks to rewrite the rules of our democracy for their own benefit. Question 3 will fundamentally change how we choose our leaders, and not for the better. Recent elections in California clearly show this reform will make it extremely difficult for grassroots candidates—including candidates of color and working-class candidates without wealthy backers—to compete. SEIU will fight to stop billionaires from buying our elections and making No Primaries a reality in Massachusetts."

"With repeated attacks on our democracy, we should be united in doing everything we can to safeguard the right to vote and limit voter disenfranchisement. Question 3 would do the opposite. It would bring a flawed system that many in other states are working hard to repeal to elections throughout Massachusetts. Top two primary systems favor the candidates with the most money to spend and greatest name recognition, which are not always the strongest, best candidates for elected office. We should be identifying ways to support candidates that share the ideals and values Massachusetts was built upon. Bringing an electoral system that increases the power of the wealthiest and the elites under the guise of reform is not only bad for voter engagement, it's dangerous for us as a Commonwealth."

“Jungle primaries wouldn’t give Massachusetts voters more choice; it would give more power to wealthy donors and corporate PACs, letting candidates with deep pockets or personal fortunes outpace grassroots campaigns before a single door is knocked. It punishes working-class candidates, first-time candidates, and candidates of color, forcing them to drop out or never consider running at all. We've watched this play out in California, and time and again we see less choice, more money. Massachusetts shouldn't make the same mistake.”

“I was the first elected official in Massachusetts to endorse legalizing cannabis. I don't defend broken systems, and I'm not here to carry water for the Democratic Party. I'm here because I've run citywide, and I know what it costs. Under Question 3, one election decides everything, and the only currencies that matter are money and name recognition. Those get handed out in rooms I've sat in. They are not in Roxbury, Mattapan, or Chelsea. And don't tell me Boston already does this. Boston is a nonpartisan city race with a majority Black and brown electorate, where you can still win on shoe leather. Question 3 takes that model to a six-million-person state with a Boston media market. It doesn't scale. A handful of private equity donors put millions into rewriting the rules of our elections. Ask who the new rules were written for. Vote No on 3.”

“I’m probably one of the lower net wealth people in office right now. I come from outside politics, I worked in community organizing and development type stuff before. Open primaries will make it significantly harder for folks with my background to run for office. If the word of the next few years is “affordability”, open primaries are not the answer.”

“This question is misleading and hurts first-time candidates like I was. Essentially, it will reward the richest candidate who can buy up TV and media. The rich already have too much voice in politics. Why would we make it the system default?”

“Open primaries may sound like reform, but we have to ask who actually benefits. For candidates who come from working-class communities, who don’t have personal wealth or wealthy networks behind them, running for office is already incredibly difficult. A system that makes campaigns even more expensive and more dependent on television, advertising, and name recognition will only raise the barrier to entry. At a time when we’re telling people that affordability is one of our highest priorities, we shouldn’t make democracy less affordable for the very people we want to step forward and serve. We need more working people, more community leaders, and more first-time candidates to believe they can run and win—not a system that gives another advantage to whoever can write the biggest check. That’s why I’m voting No on Question 3.”

“California ran this experiment. The results are terrible. In one race, four Democrats split the vote in a majority-minority district Obama won by sixteen points. Yet, because of the top two system, those voters spent November choosing between only two Republicans. This is a system that rewards wealthy candidates.Massachusetts primaries are already open. Unenrolled voters, the majority of this state, can pull whichever ballot they want. Question 3 just makes it easier for the excessively wealthy to engineer election outcomes of their choosing. No on 3.”

“Question 3 is a solution looking for a problem that does not exist. Independent and unenrolled voters in Massachusetts already have the right to participate in our primary elections by choosing a Democratic or Republican ballot. We don’t need to dismantle a system voters understand to give people a right they already have. Instead of creating more confusion and fundamentally changing how our elections work, we should focus on increasing voter participation and strengthening our democracy. That’s why I’m voting NO on Question 3.”

“As the son of an immigrant in Lawrence, I did not have access to wealthy networks. I won my seat through hard work, going door to door, meeting voters and talking about issues. Question 3 would seriously hurt candidates like me in the future. Community organizers and those doing the work in the community every day will be at a severe disadvantage to those who can self-fund or have access to wealthy donors. That’s bad for democracy, those closest to their constituents should be elected, not those closest to donors.”