Caught in a trap

The Massachusetts Legislature may not be big on transparency but it sure knows how to play the political game.

Score One for House and Senate leaders in the latest round of tug-of-war with Auditor Diana DiZoglio over the voter-approved question to audit the General Court.

House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka have been conspicuously silent on next steps to implement Question 1, with Mariano offering a weak tea proposal to allow DiZoglio to name an outside auditor to look at the House books.

Mariano has emphasized that new internal rule would not directly alter the measure passed by voters. It would not overrule any law, nor does it legally bind DiZoglio or even the state Senate, which operates under its own rules.

Legislative leaders, backed by a 2023 opinion from Attorney General Andrea Campbell, insist the question violates the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights by giving an executive branch agency (the State Auditor’s Office) authority over the legislative branch.

“The SAO is a creation of the Legislature and is vested with the authority granted to it by the Legislature. … That authority does not include the power to audit the Legislature itself over the Legislature’s objection. This conclusion is supported by the statutory text, its legislative history, judicial interpretation of similar statutes, and the historical record.”

But the silence from the Statehouse’s third floor since November 5 has definitely gotten under DiZoglio’s skin, prompting her to threaten to sue lawmakers to implement the law immediately. And in the process putting herself in some degree of conflict not only with Campbell but with Secretary of State Bill Galvin.

At a press conference attended by Question 1 backers on both the right and left, DiZoglio, who holds a degree in in psychology and Spanish, says the law should take effect today, or 30 days after the election.

Galvin, who has run state elections since 1995, cites a decades-old Supreme Judicial Court opinion that the law doesn’t take effect until 30 days after state officials certified the results. Yesterday.

It’s long been obvious this argument can only be settled by the SJC. The question has been who would go to court first — the auditor or the Legislature. It’s a safe bet that if Mariano and Spilka went first they would be cast as continuing to resist the will of the people.

By taking the bait, DiZoglio seems to have forgotten the 1829 poem by Mary Howitt:

"Will you walk into my parlour?" said the Spider to the Fly.

DiZoglio spun her own version of the stand off:

“This is no longer a disagreement between colleagues of [Campbell] up on Beacon Hill. This is the people of Massachusetts who have now spoken and made it crystal clear that they expect the Legislature to comply, and they not only expected, they’ve mandated that they comply . . . and they mandated that my office do our job.”

“The Legislature has already been breaking the law.”

Campbell has sought to avoid formally stepping back into the controversy — her approval of the ballot question reflected the fact it did not contain any of the “excluded items” delineated by the state Constitution.

“Right now I have the auditor pushing for our office to get involved. There is no role for our office to play right now,” Campbell told Boston Public Radio.

As the state’s attorney, the AG usually represents the commonwealth in court cases. An inter-branch dispute presents headaches she would probably want to avoid. Although her 2023 opinion would no doubt carry some weight.

There is zero question that the Massachusetts Legislature is an opaque body that loves to operate in the shadows, ignoring or suspending their rules along the way.

A much cleaner voter test would have been to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. But that would have had to wait until 2026, a delay an ambitious politician seems to have thought to be too long.