Massachusetts voters will have the opportunity to repeal their state’s adult-use cannabis laws this November unless a new challenge prevails.
The state’s Election Division informed cannabis prohibitionists on July 9 that their petition, “An Act to Restore Sensible Marijuana Policy,” has officially qualified for the 2026 ballot after circulators collected enough valid signatures ahead of a July 1 deadline.
The Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts previously filed more than 74,574 valid signatures in December during the first wave of its signature-gathering effort, putting their proposal before state lawmakers to consider taking up the petition legislatively. After the Legislature opted not to do so, the coalition had roughly two months to collect at least 12,429 more valid signatures before July 1 to secure its ballot petition.
Michelle K. Tassinari, first deputy secretary of the Elections Division, who also serves as the division’s director and legal counsel, notified the petitioners on Thursday that they met the second-round threshold by 122 valid signatures.
“As you are aware,12,429 additional certified signatures are required to qualify an initiative petition for a law to be printed on the ballot,” Tassinari wrote. “I am pleased to inform you that 12,551 certified signatures of the 12,889 received by this office on or before July 1, 2026, have been allowed. … Therefore, the initiative petition will be printed on the November 3, 2026, state election ballot as required by the Constitution.”
Wendy Wakeman, the spokesperson for the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, shared Tassinari’s letter with Cannabis Business Times.
Wakeman also informed CBT that a challenge to the July 1 signatures was filed with the State Ballot Law Commission.
“We are not overly concerned,” Wakeman told CBT. “It’s the last desperate attempt to kill the question.”
Kevin Gilnack, a registered voter from Dorchester, filed the challenge on July 8 as the “objector” to the signatures, arguing seven points in his request that the State Ballot Law Commission review the “challenged signatures and petitions and to exercise its power to disqualify” them.
Gilnack, a cannabis advocate and public affairs consultant, urged the commission to disqualify more than 122 signatures from the petition’s second circulation wave and issue an order to the secretary of the commonwealth to deny the petition’s placement on the November ballot.
Gilnack argued that numerous signatures:
- are not “signed substantially as registered;”
- are those of persons who are not registered voters within the city or town stated, or at the address written, on the applicable petitions;
- are not genuine;
- were obtained through fraudulent means;
- are those of voters who have subsequently requested that their names be removed from the applicable petitions; and
that numerous petitions:
- should not have been accepted by the secretary of the commonwealth because they contained extraneous marks; and
- are not exact copies of the petition form as provided by the secretary of the commonwealth, in that they differ from the original in paper size, color, text or format, or otherwise fail to conform with state requirements.
The State Ballot Law Commission will hold a hearing at 2 p.m. July 15 in Boston, and will continue the hearing on July 16 and 17, if necessary.
Objectors filed a similar challenge with the State Ballot Law Commission following the anti-cannabis campaign’s first round of signatures; however, the commission issued a decision in January overruling the objection, ruling that there was “no admissible evidence” that the campaign’s canvassers used deceptive and misleading tactics to trick voters into signing the petition.
The Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts also survived a legal challenge in the state’s Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled on June 12 that Massachusetts Attorney General Joy Campbell did not err when she approved an initiative petition in September 2025. That challenge centered on the constitutionality of the petition’s subject matter and language.
The petition would specifically repeal chapters 94G (regulations) and 64N (taxes) of the state’s General Laws, which govern the possession, use, distribution, cultivation and taxation of cannabis not medically recommended to a patient. Chapter 94G also includes the right of adults 21 years and older to cultivate up to six plants at home for personal use.
Massachusetts voters approved these provisions with a 54% majority when they passed an adult-use legalization measure in the November 2016 election.
The 2026 petition would not repeal the state’s medical cannabis laws, nor would it recriminalize adults 21 and older who possess up to 1 ounce of cannabis or 5 grams of concentrate (with those possessing between 1 and 2 ounces subject to a civil penalty). However, it would require certain penalties for those younger than 21 who violate possession laws, including the completion of a drug awareness program and community service.
An Act to Restore Sensible Marijuana Policy would also provide Massachusetts’ adult-use cannabis businesses an expedited pathway to enter the commonwealth’s medical market should voters approve the prohibitionist measure this November.
The latest actions surrounding the petition come as a group of dispensary owners, health care professionals, law enforcement officials and cannabis advocates joined forces on June 25 to launch the “Stop the Repeal” campaign.
The campaign pointed out that the state’s adult-use marketplace has generated roughly $2 billion in state and local revenue since dispensary sales commenced in November 2018, and that the commercial marketplace employs more than 27,000 workers.
“Repealing recreational cannabis laws in Massachusetts will not only take us backwards – it will negatively impact our communities that are already struggling with budget shortfalls and locally owned small businesses that have invested their life savings into building their legal businesses that create jobs and support local economies,” Campaign Chair Ryan Dominguez said. “We look forward to standing alongside our allies as we educate voters on what this ballot initiative actually does and fight back against out-of-state special interest groups pushing this regressive policy.”
