Question 2: Collective Bargaining for CPCS Employees
Massachusetts · Law Proposed by Initiative Petition · on the November 3, 2026 ballot. The ballot wording and the arguments for and against from the state’s official voter guide, in the state’s own words, each read the same way for rhetorical techniques. We don’t recommend a vote.
On the ballot
no rhetorical technique found
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026?
This proposed law would specify that employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (“CPCS”) are permitted to engage in collective bargaining with their employer. It would also require CPCS, after executing a collective bargaining agreement, to request the appropriation necessary to fund such agreement from the Governor.
A YES VOTE would specify that Committee for Public Counsel Services employees may form a union to collectively bargain with their employer.
A NO VOTE would make no change to the law governing labor relations for Committee for Public Counsel Service employees.
From sec.state.ma.us. Checked 2026-10-20. Confirm with your official ballot (sample-ballot lookup).
Argument for
By Tom McKeever, Labor Unions for Public Counsel Workers Rights
no rhetorical technique found
A YES vote will give employees of the Massachusetts Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) the right to organize a union and collectively bargain with their employer if they choose to do so.
CPCS employees provide critical support for the constitutional right to counsel and help ensure that Massachusetts residents who cannot afford an attorney have access to legal representation. Yet, unlike other state employees, CPCS employees do not currently have the right to choose whether to organize and collectively bargain over wages, benefits and working conditions.
This ballot question would allow CPCS employees to form a union if they so choose. It simply gives CPCS employees the right to make that choice for themselves.
Vote YES to give CPCS employees the right to choose.
From sec.state.ma.us, the official voter guide.
Argument against
By Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth
no rhetorical technique found
Allowing employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) to collectively bargain creates serious operational and fiscal risks for the judiciary. CPCS operates as an independent judicial branch agency tasked with providing constitutional defense to indigent clients. Introducing collective bargaining into this framework could disrupt existing management and supervisory frameworks, introduce ambiguity into lines of authority, and create operational inefficiencies.
Changes to labor relations policies of this scale could have unintended consequences for the delivery of legal services, particularly if they limit the agency's ability to respond flexibly to fluctuating caseloads, staffing needs, and court demands.
From sec.state.ma.us, the official voter guide.
Who’s behind it
Party positions: Massachusetts Democratic Party: No position published · Massachusetts Republican Party: No stance
Committees registered to support or oppose Question 2, and what they reported to Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) - ocpf.us / api.ocpf.us. Checked 2026-10-21.
Before comparing the sides: each committee’s figures come from its own latest report, so they can cover different dates. Some committees work on more than one measure or other campaigns, and their totals include all of it. A side with no registered committee can still have supporters. How much a side raised says nothing about whether the measure is a good idea.
Supporting
Labor Unions for Public Counsel Workers Rights
Ballot measure committee
Raised $1,083,060 · spent $1,062,100 · as reported through Oct 15, 2026
Largest contributors as filed:
- National Association of Government Employees · $542,060
Labor union - Seiu Local 888 · $541,000
Labor union
Democratic Socialists For a Fair Massachusetts
Ballot measure committee
Raised $5,705 · spent $31 · as reported through Oct 15, 2026
Largest contributors as filed:
- Democratic Socialists of America, Inc · $5,000
501(c)(4) nonprofit - Massachusetts Democratic Socialists of America, Inc · $655
501(c)(4) nonprofit - Del Bonis, James · $50 · individual
This committee is registered for more than one measure; these are its whole totals, which its filings don’t divide by measure.
Opposing
No registered committee opposing Question 2 found as of 2026-10-21.
A rhetorical technique is about wording, not about whether a measure is a good idea or an argument is true. Ballot wording is written under each state’s own rules, and official arguments by the people the state names. All Massachusetts measures →