A Massachusetts voter hoping to prevent an adult-use cannabis repeal question from appearing on the commonwealth’s 2026 ballot failed to meet his burden of proof, the State Ballot Law Commission ruled on July 21.
That means Massachusetts voters will decide in November whether to keep or roll back their adult-use legalization laws allowing for licensed, regulated and taxed dispensary sales to those 21 years and older.
The Ballot Law Commission’s decision came after Kevin Gilnack, of Dorchester, filed a challenge on July 8 as the “objector” to a prohibitionist group’s petition signatures, arguing that various signatures that local election officials validated should be tossed.
“The commission … finds, rules and concludes that the objector has not met his burden of proof to disqualify enough signatures on the initiative petition,” according to Tuesday’s ruling. “The commission overrules objector’s challenges to the initiative petition and the [state] secretary is ordered to print the ballot question on the November 3, 2026, state election ballot.”
The Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, the group behind the repeal petition, “An Act to Restore Sensible Marijuana Policy,” filed 12,551 valid signatures ahead of a July 1 deadline, the state’s Election Division determined on July 9.
The coalition 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 declined to do so, the coalition had roughly two months to collect another 12,429 valid signatures to secure its ballot position.
After the Election Division determined that 12,551 signatures from the second wave were valid, Gilnack’s burden was to prove that at least 123 should be disqualified. He argued multiple points for disqualification of certain signatures.
Gilnack included a list of 231 certified signatures that he argued contained “stray marks,” 99 as being “non-genuine,” more than 120 as “ineligible,” five on which local election officials failed to mark a check next to a name in the appropriate column, and four on which no street address was included.
The Ballot Law Commission provided statutory and constitutional context behind the state’s intent of forbidding “stray marks,” such as highlighting or underlining sections of a petition to direct potential signers to particular portions in an attempt to persuade. In other words, the state doesn’t want those campaigning for a particular initiative to mislead the public.
After weighing the state’s constitutional and statutory backdrop, the commission determined not to disqualify any of the 231 signatures that Gilnack challenged for potential stray marks.
“The ‘stray marks’ identified by the objector appear mostly on the back of the petition forms and appear to be just that—stray marks,” the commission ruled. “They do not appear to be intentional markings and do not present voters with any information. Instead, they are errant pen marks that have no material effect on the remainder of the content of the petition.”
The Ballot Law Commission also found that the objector did not meet the burden of proof that local election officials erred in certifying any signatures because of illegibility.
Jennifer L. Naso, a forensic document examiner employed by Riley, Welch, LaPorte & Associates in Frankenmuth, Mich., since 2011, testified as a handwriting expert on behalf of Gilnack.
“The objector and his expert witness acknowledged that they are not familiar with the process undertaken by the local election officials when certifying names on nomination papers and initiative petitions,” according to the commission. “Additionally, the expert stated that her opinions were based solely on the review of the signature on the petition and did not take into account any additional information that the local election officials would have available to them, such as an address list.”
The 99 non-genuine signatures, Gilnack argued, were “sufficiently similar to suggest they were signed by the same person,” but the commission again ruled that the objector did not meet his burden of proof.
“The objector did not present any testimony from individuals who indicated either that they signed another person’s name or that the signature being challenged was not their signature,” the commission ruled. “The objector did not present evidence showing or otherwise disputing whether a disability prevented a voter from signing.”
For the five signatures that had missing check marks by local election officials, the commission ruled: “On each of these sheets, however, the local election officials applied their signatures or stamp of their signatures, signifying they certified the name on the page. As such, the commission declines to invalidate those signatures.”
The commission did, however, rule in Gilnack’s favor to disqualify four signatures that had missing or incorrect addresses on them.
But those four disqualified signatures weren’t enough to keep the prohibitionist question from securing a ballot position.
The Elections Division of Secretary of the Commonwealth William Francis Galvin’s office completed its certification for eight ballot petitions and one referendum question on July 17. The office assigned ballot question numbers on July 21 immediately following the commission’s ruling.
The petition to prohibit adult-use cannabis dispensary sales will appear as Question 8.
Kevin Sabet, the president and CEO of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which contributed more than $1.5 million to the Massachusetts campaign last year, took a small victory lap with Tuesday’s announcement.
“It’s official: Big Marijuana’s fate is on the ballot in Massachusetts,” he wrote on X. “To be clear, this would not put anyone in jail for smoking a joint. But it would rob Big Weed from profiting off of addiction and commercializing hazardous products. It’s long overdue.”
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 to legalize adult-use cannabis with a 54% majority in the November 2016 election.
The 2026 ballot question 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.
