Finally, some constitutional remedies to potentially kick a hidebound Massachusetts Legislature in the backside.
Citizen groups have filed more than 40 petitions for 2026 ballot questions, even as State Auditor Diana DiZoglio used a lazy August day to toss some bombs at lawmakers.
DiZoglio, who longtime Statehouse observer Gin Dumcius notes has “carved out a reputation for being unavoidable for comment on Beacon Hill,” emerged from an unusual quiet period to announce she had hired a private attorney to pursue her quest to implement a voter-approved ballot question to audit what she calls “an authoritarian regime.”
“It is a dictatorial style of government. It is not democratic. It is, in fact, anti-democratic,” DiZoglio said. “We’re just trying to get before a court right now, and we can’t even get our constitutional right to get an impartial hearing recognized by the top law enforcement agency of this commonwealth.”
Court is exactly where this question should be. It’s the only place to remove the stench of political gamesmanship surrounding it. But I suspect Democrat DiZoglio, who has financial backing from Republicans for the challenge, won’t like the result.
Because the question blatantly violates the Massachusetts Constitution. Take it from Attorney General Andrea Campbell, who approved the question because it met separate and unrelated legal tests, despite clear concerns it violates the state constitution’s separation of powers clause:
“In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.
The State Auditor’s Office is an executive office.
The suit comes as DiZoglio continues her feud with Campbell, who has been waiting several months for answers to questions posed by her before she decides whether she can represent the Auditor in court.
While the question passed with 72 percent of the vote and has bipartisan support, state Republicans are bankrolling the latest effort, prompting another concern from Campbell’s office:
“Massachusetts state law is clear that any lawful litigation brought by state officials or state entities must be authorized by the Attorney General’s Office,” Sydney Heiberger, a spokesperson for Campbell’s office, said in a statement. ““Any unauthorized litigation initiated by the Auditor will be dismissed immediately.”
The Legislature has taken baby steps to bring sunlight into their opaque processes. But politics is never far from the surface in their actions either. And in this case, DiZoglio blinked.
It’s been clear from the start that the Supreme Judicial Court is the only place to determine the legality of the ballot question. Lawmakers have not requested an advisory opinion, which is their right. The reason for not doing that could be either legal or strategic.
It would be simpler if DiZoglio answered Campbell’s questions and there is a true legal resolution.
But lawmakers are undoubtedly sweating out a couple of proposed questions for the 2026 ballot — one that would target stipends they receive over and above their base salary for chairing committees. Even if those committees do little or no work.
Another would limit stipends to a certain percentage of a legislative leader’s base salary.
But an even bigger threat to one of the nation’s most opaque state governments is a proposal to extend the state’s public records law to the Legislature and governor.
Naturally House Speaker Ron Mariano has concerns, telling the Boston Globe:
“I see a lot more of these well-financed special interest groups taking advantage of a procedure that I think is way too easy to get a question on the ballot,” he said. “No one’s talking to the voters. They’re just getting signatures. It becomes an organizational chore more than anything. And when you see ballot initiatives become law, you see the holes in them.”
Of course there wouldn’t be a need for the questions if lawmakers did more of their work in sunlight.
For example, another 2026 proposed question would give cities and towns the power to implement rent control within their borders. A 1994 statewide ballot question took away that right from a handful of communities.
Housing advocates have annually filed bills to restore that local option — as has Boston Mayor Michelle Wu. But those proposals languish and die annually through lobbying by landlords, which includes more than one in four state legislators who owned multiple units or properties in 2023. Meanwhile, the number of legislative renters can be counted on one hand.
The 2026 proposals have a circuitous path, including the collection of thousands of signatures and a potential hearing from lawmakers who could pass them outright.
Mariano has a point about special interests and the failure to talk to voters. But lawmakers listen more intently to those special interests — who help finance their campaigns — than they do listening to their constituents.
Instead of auditing the Legislature it may be more valuable to open their ears.