By Bob Katzen
The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled that the ballot question reducing the state income tax from 5 percent to 4 percent over a three-year period, is ineligible to appear on the Nov. 3 ballot, with justices concluding Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office provided a “significantly misleading” summary of the proposal that was likely to influence voters.
Opponents of the tax cut filed a lawsuit with the SJC in January contending that Campbell’s summary of the proposal is flawed and unfair because it fails to make clear that voter approval of the question would also automatically reduce the tax rate for long-term capital gains income, which under current law is tied to the income tax rate.
Campbell’s office had argued that her summary accurately summarized the proposal because the initiative “does not specifically propose to amend the statutes setting the rate of taxation for capital gain income.”
The court did not buy the argument by supporters of the ballot question that a reduction in the long-term capital gains tax rate is not guaranteed, because the Legislature could amend the current law before the election and untether the capital gains rate from the income tax rate. The court ruled that that possibility does not make the summary fair, noting that the court reviews the summary against the law as it exists, not based on speculation about a hypothetical future statute.
“The court has made its decision. I think what doesn’t change is the need for everyone to focus on driving down costs and making life more affordable for people in Massachusetts,” said Gov. Healey. “That’s been my top priority. That’s what I’ve been doing, you know, cutting co-pays and deductibles when it comes to healthcare, fighting utility rate increases, you know and doing the things that we need to do to make life more affordable, so that they can afford homes.”
“A $5 billion annual loss in state revenue would’ve meant significant cuts to services and programs that Massachusetts residents rely on, while doing little to bolster competitiveness and address the affordability challenges facing the commonwealth,” said House Speaker Ron Mariano (D-Quincy). “I’m grateful that this irresponsible initiative petition won’t appear on the ballot in November.”
“The dark-money proponents of this reckless ballot initiative tried to hide an enormous give-away to the richest 1% within the appearance of a broad-based tax cut,” said Max Page, President of the Massachusetts Teachers Association. “It’s good that the court stood up for the principle that voters deserve to know what they’re voting on. However, the out-of-touch billionaires behind this initiative are continuing to push their revenue cap ballot initiative, which would cost the state billions of dollars over the coming years and force cuts to public schools, healthcare and other critical programs.”
“This is a disgraceful outcome for Massachusetts taxpayers and a direct result of the attorney general’s failure to do her job properly,” said Mass Fiscal Alliance executive director Paul Craney. “More than 100,000 residents signed petitions to put tax relief before the voters. They followed the process, did the work and earned a place on the ballot. Now, because the attorney general’s office produced a summary the court found to be significantly misleading, voters are being denied the chance to decide for themselves whether Massachusetts should lower its income tax.”
The Pioneer Institute said, “Today’s ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is a serious disappointment for commonwealth families struggling under one of the highest tax and cost burdens in the nation. The court’s decision rests on a drafting error in the attorney general’s summary of the petition — a matter entirely outside the control of voters and petition signers. As a result, the people of Massachusetts will be denied the opportunity to decide whether the commonwealth should reduce the income tax rate from 5% to 4%.”