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?
Summary
As required by law, summaries are written by the State Attorney General.
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.
What Will Your Vote Do?
As required by law, the statements describing the effect of a "yes" or "no" vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
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.
Statement of Fiscal Consequences
As required by law, statements of fiscal consequences are written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.
The proposed law may have an impact on state finances. CPCS receives its funding, in part, from state government appropriations. The fiscal impact of the proposed law is difficult to project due to the uncertainty regarding the outcomes of any such collective bargaining by CPCS employees.
Arguments
As provided by law, the 150-word arguments are written by proponents and opponents of each question, and reflect their opinions. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not endorse these arguments, and does not certify the truth or accuracy of any statement made in these arguments. The names of the individuals and organizations who wrote each argument, and any written comments by others about each argument, are on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.In Favor:
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.Authored by:
Tom McKeever
Labor Unions for Public Counsel Workers Rights
PO Box 9536
c/o North Side Ventures
Lowell, MA 01853
617-241-3300
Against:
As of the printing of this book, there was no organized group urging a "No" vote on Question 2. The information below has been compiled by the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, in part from arguments presented in the Legislature's Majority Report. The argument below does not reflect the opinions of the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
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.
Authored by:
"If no argument is received by the secretary from the principal proponents or opponents of a measure within the time allowed by this section, the secretary shall prepare such argument."
– M.G.L. c. 54 § 54.
Legislative Reports
Question 2: Majority Report
A majority of the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions
Article 48 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth allows voters to propose laws or constitutional amendments through initiative petitions, commonly called ballot questions. After gathering the required signatures and submitting certified signatures to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, a petition is formally presented to the Legislature for consideration. It is then referred to a committee, in this case, the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions.
Under Article 48, the committee must report to the Legislature on each petition before the first Wednesday in May. Unlike the standard legislative process, the Legislature may only approve or reject an initiative petition as submitted, without making changes.
The Committee held a hearing on Initiative Petition 25-22, House 5009, Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to Labor Relations Policies for Committee for Public Counsel Services Employees, on March 16, 2026. The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held public hearings throughout March 2026 to gather testimony and inform its review. The Committee considered input from subject matter experts and proponents of the Petition, as well as members of the public. The full hearing record and supporting documentation is available to the public at malegislature.gov/Events/Hearings/Detail/5595.
On May 4, 2026, a majority of the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions ("the Committee") voted to recommend that the General Court take no action on Initiative Petition 25-22, House 5009, Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to Labor Relations Policies for Committee for Public Counsel Services Employees ("the Petition").
In reaching this determination, the Committee conducted a comprehensive review of the proposed measure, including a close examination of its language, structure, and stated intent. The Committee evaluated testimony and documentary evidence presented during the public hearing, along with written submissions received by the Committee. The testimony reflected a broad range of perspectives from stakeholders with direct experience in public defense, labor relations, and public administration.
Proponents of the Petition argued that the proposed changes would enhance employee representation within the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS), promote greater consistency and fairness in workplace policies, and support improved recruitment and retention of attorneys and staff. Several supporters emphasized ongoing challenges related to workload, compensation, and workplace conditions, and contended that expanded labor protections and collective bargaining rights would strengthen the agency's ability to attract and retain qualified personnel, ultimately benefiting the clients CPCS serves.
Experts raised concerns regarding the scope and structure of the proposal. Testimony highlighted the potential for the measure to disrupt existing management and supervisory frameworks, introduce ambiguity into lines of authority, and create operational inefficiencies. Some witnesses also cautioned that 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.
The Committee notes that the Committee for Public Counsel Services was established to ensure that indigent individuals in the Commonwealth receive legal representation in criminal and certain family law matters, consistent with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article XII of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of the Commonwealth. Public defenders and assigned counsel fulfill a critical constitutional function, and their role in safeguarding due process and equal access to justice is fundamental to the integrity of the legal system.
In evaluating the Petition, the Committee carefully considered the testimony of the experts, proponents and members of the public. Based on the issues raised by the testimony, the Committee encourages continued dialogue and collaboration between the petition's proponents and the Committee for Public Counsel Services to address issues highlighted by the testimony. The Committee further encourages CPCS to continue examining and addressing workplace challenges in a manner that strengthens both employee well-being and the agency's core mission of delivering high-quality legal representation to indigent clients.
It is important to note that Article 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, which governs the initiative petition process, requires the Attorney General to provide initial certification of initiative petitions that meet the specific and limited requirements listed in Article 48. In making a decision on whether to initially certify an initiative petition, the Attorney General does not evaluate a petition's broader constitutionality; her certification decision is limited only to the narrow criteria listed in Article 48. Thus, this Petition has been certified by the Attorney General under Article 48, but it has not been evaluated by her or the courts for its constitutionality at this time.
For these reasons, a majority of the Committee recommends that the General Court take no action on Initiative Petition 25-22, House 5009, Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to Labor Relations Policies for Committee for Public Counsel Services Employees.
Senators
Cindy F. Friedman
Brendan P. Crighton
Barry R. Finegold
Representatives
Alice Hanlon Peisch
Kate Hogan
Frank A. Moran
Michael S. Day
David T. Vieira
Question 2: Full Text of Proposed Law
An Act relative to labor relations policies for committee for public counsel services employees.
Be it enacted by the People, and by their authority;
SECTION 1: Section 1 of chapter 150E of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2022 Official Edition, is hereby amended by adding to the end of the seventh paragraph, titled "Employer" or "public employer", the following sentence: "In the case of employees of the committee for public counsel services, employer shall mean the committee for public counsel services or its designee."
SECTION 2. Section 7 of said chapter 150E of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking the word "or" before the phrase "the state lottery commission" in line 16 and adding the following words after that phrase: "or the committee for public counsel services."
SECTION 3. Said section 7 of said chapter 150E of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking the word "and" before the words "the state lottery commission" appearing in line 34 and inserting after the word "commission" in line 35 the following words: "and committee for public counsel services."
