Skip to main content
Independent and nonpartisan. SaveYourState is a civic information resource. It is not a government website and is not affiliated with any government agency, party, or campaign.

Massachusetts · November 3, 2026 general election · Statewide ballot measure

Question 6: what your vote means

Natural Resource Conservation Fund. On every Massachusetts ballot. Official sources checked October 21, 2026.

Question 6 · Law proposed by initiative petition

Natural Resource Conservation Fund

Official ballot title (quoted exactly)

Question 6: Law proposed by initiative petition — Natural Resource Conservation Fund. 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?

Ballot question as printed in the 2026 Information for Voters, Secretary of the Commonwealth. On the ballot, the Attorney General’s summary (linked below) appears beneath the question.

A YES vote means:

A Nature for All Fund would be created and, subject to legislative appropriation, would receive state sales taxes on sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses (50% at first, 100% after July 1, 2028) for natural resource conservation.

A NO vote means:

This fund would not be created and the way these sales and use taxes are spent would not change.

What it would change

  • Who is affected: state agencies, cities and towns, conservation charities, and tribal governments that could receive money; programs currently funded by these tax receipts.
  • Governance: a 15-member Nature for All Board would set spending rules; uses include protecting water, land, farms, and forests and creating parks and trails.
  • Taxes: no new tax; existing tax receipts would be redirected.
  • Fiscal impact (Executive Office of Administration and Finance): would divert tens of millions of dollars a year from the state operating budget, with substantial implementation costs.

Official arguments, summarized

Short neutral summaries of the arguments printed in the official voters’ pamphlet. The committees that wrote them are responsible for their content. Read the full text at the link below.

Argument for

Supporters say it would dedicate up to about $100 million a year to water, land, and wildlife protection without a new tax.

Written by: Mass Audubon · natureforma.org

Argument against

No organized group submitted an argument against; the Secretary of the Commonwealth prepared one from the Legislature’s majority report, which says permanently earmarking these revenues would draw on money now used for other programs.

Arguments for and against Question 6, 2026 Information for Voters

Who supports it and who opposes it

These lists come from official campaign filings (registered committees) and public endorsements, each linked to its source. They are not complete, and SaveYourState does not endorse anyone listed. Lists checked October 30, 2026.

Who supports it

Who opposes it

Not yet compiled

Official sources

SaveYourState is independent and nonpartisan, not a government site, and does not take positions on ballot measures. This explainer describes effects only, using the official ballot title, explanatory statement, full text, and fiscal impact statement. If anything here differs from those documents, the official documents control.