Ayanna Pressley

Former governors Charlie Baker and Deval Patrick announced their support for the "Yes on 3" campaign on the same day that Rep. Ayanna Pressley said she was opposed to all-party primaries.

Massachusetts statewide elections would change significantly if Question 3 passes, and a range of political figures are starting to take sides in the debate.

This change would apply to offices like governor and auditor, the state Legislature, and Congress, as well as county and district positions such as sheriff and district attorney. Municipal elections would not change, and neither would presidential elections. The new law would take effect on Jan. 1, 2028.

The ballot question, one of nine that will be put before voters on Nov. 3, would replace partisan primaries with all-party primaries for most state, federal, county, and district offices. The two candidates receiving the most votes would then advance to the general election.

Unique coalitions are forming on both sides of the issue. Question 3 would eliminate rules requiring statewide candidates to secure at least 15 percent of delegate votes at party conventions, reducing the role of state political parties in the nominating process. As such, both the Massachusetts Democratic Party and the Massachusetts Republican Party oppose the ballot question.

Two former governors from opposite parties joined together this week to endorse the “Yes on 3” campaign. Charlie Baker and Deval Patrick touted the all-party primary system as a way to improve democracy and give more people a say in choosing their elected officials.

“All-party primaries will give voters more choice and our elected officials will have to reach across the aisle to voters from other parties if they want to be successful,” Baker said in a statement.

“All-party primaries can enable more good people to compete, and encourage more office holders to deliver results once elected,” Patrick added.

Other notable “Yes on 3” supporters include Auditor Diana DiZoglio; the mayors of Malden, Medford, Fitchburg, and New Bedford; former Congressman Joe Kennedy III; former Lt. Gov. Tim Murray; and NAACP Boston President Tanisha Sullivan.

Supporters argue that the current election dynamics of deep-blue Massachusetts often cause the two most popular candidates to face off in a low-turnout primary as opposed to the general election, when more voters weigh in. They also say that the change would give a jolt to a notoriously unproductive state Legislature.

But other high-profile figures are lining up to oppose the ballot question. Rep. Ayanna Pressley announced this week that she is aligned with the “No on 3” campaign, saying that it would invite more spending by special interests in elections.

“We can’t let private equity and dark money groups rig Massachusetts primaries to shut out working class candidates, candidates of color, and first-time candidates in favor of those who have fast access to massive wealth and the biggest ad budgets,” she said in a statement.

Pressley joins Sen. Ed Markey, who told The Boston Globe over the summer that he supports keeping the current primary system “so that each party can pick the best candidate.” A range of current elected officials in city councils and the Legislature oppose all-party primaries, along with unions like the Massachusetts Teachers Association and 32BJ SEIU.

Opponents argue an all-party primary system would attract outside spending, make candidates and legislators more reliant on donors, pressure voters to abandon their candidates of choice, and sideline independents.

Researchers at Tufts University’s nonpartisan Center for State Policy Analysis published a deep-dive into the question and its various ramifications.

Recent polling from CommonWealth Beacon and MassINC shows that the question is on track to pass now, but the margins are close. About 43 percent of likely voters support a switch to all-party primaries, while 36 oppose it. There are still 20 percent of voters that remain undecided.