On Question 2, No One Organized Against Letting Public Defenders Unionize. So Galvin Wrote the 'No' Argument Himself
CPCS employees have tried to unionize at least three times since 1979. A bill to let them has died in six legislative sessions. A union could bargain over caseloads, but the Legislature still sets the agency's budget.
Massachusetts voters decide Tuesday whether the roughly 800 attorneys and staff at the Committee for Public Counsel Services, the state's public defense agency, can unionize and bargain collectively over wages and working conditions, The Harvard Crimson reported.
A yes vote on Question 2 would add CPCS to the state's public employee labor relations law. A no vote would leave current law in place. CPCS is one of few agencies without the right to bargain collectively, alongside categories such as elected officials and confidential employees; roughly 180 other agencies can legally unionize, according to the Crimson.
<h3>A long road to the ballot</h3>
CPCS employees have tried to unionize at least three times since 1979, most recently in 2015, the Crimson reported. A bill to add the agency to the collective bargaining law, pushed by organizers with SEIU Local 888, has been filed across six legislative sessions and died each time.
The question arrives after a disruptive year in public defense. In May 2025, bar advocates, the private attorneys contracted by the state who handle roughly 80 percent of the agency's caseload, began a work stoppage seeking higher pay, forcing the release of more than a thousand criminal cases, according to the Crimson. State law requires defendants to be released after seven days without an appointed attorney and their cases dismissed after 45 days.
Bar advocates sought an hourly rate increase from $65 to $100. The Legislature approved two $10 increases over the past two summers and allocated an additional $40 million to hire about 320 staff public defenders by the end of fiscal year 2027, the Crimson reported.
Staff attorneys, unlike bar advocates, kept working during the stoppage; the 400 CPCS staff attorneys have no legal right to unionize.
<h3>The case for</h3>
Chelsea A. Mattiota, a CPCS staff attorney, told the Crimson her office has 'basically doubled in size' with the agency's hiring push, and that a union would give employees a voice in how that growth is managed. 'You never want to meet a client and just kind of think like, okay, I have to say nice to meet you, I'm really triaging everything,' she said of caseloads.
Ned S. Melanson, a bar advocate, said a union would likely bargain over 'how many cases each lawyer is assigned and what their working hours are.' He cautioned that bargaining rights would not guarantee more money, because CPCS's budget is set by the Legislature. 'They might end up running into the same issue that the bar advocates have, which is a legislature that won't adequately fund public defense,' he said.
More than $1 million has been raised for the measure, mainly through the Labor Unions for Public Counsel Workers Rights committee, roughly half from the National Association of Government Employees and half from SEIU Local 888, according to the Crimson. Supporters include U.S. Sen. Ed Markey, Reps. Ayanna Pressley and Stephen Lynch, Cambridge Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui, state Rep. Marjorie Decker and Boston Mayor Michelle Wu.
<h3>The case against, written by the state</h3>
No committee has organized in opposition, the Crimson reported. In the absence of one, Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin wrote the opposing argument in the official voter guide, saying the measure 'would create serious operational and fiscal risks for the judiciary,' citing potential effects on workflow and supervisory standards.
The legislative committee's majority report, also in the guide, said unionization could 'disrupt existing management and supervisory frameworks, introduce ambiguity into lines of authority, and create operational inefficiencies,' according to expert testimony, and some witnesses warned it could limit the agency's ability to respond to 'fluctuating caseloads, staffing needs, and court demands.'
A CPCS spokesperson did not respond to the Crimson's request for comment on the agency's position.
<h3>A disputed finding</h3>
A June report from the Massachusetts inspector general found that CPCS was not following its mandate on the division of cases between staff and private attorneys, the Crimson reported; the agency has disputed the finding.
<h3>The polls</h3>
A UMass Amherst/WCVB poll found 57 percent of respondents likely to vote yes and about 19 percent likely to vote no, according to the Crimson. Like every ballot initiative, Question 2 must win a majority of votes on the question and yes votes equal to at least 30 percent of all ballots cast to pass. Polls close at 8 p.m.
