HopNews
More than 100,000 Massachusetts residents followed the rules, gathered signatures, and earned a spot on the November ballot. AG Andrea Campbell’s office erased it. No one has explained why.
What Happened
On Thursday (June 19), Massachusetts voters didn’t lose out on tax relief because the idea was unpopular. They didn’t lose it because the courts found a flaw in the proposal. They lost it because Attorney General (AG) Andrea Campbell’s office wrote the wrong thing on a government form.
This should bother every Massachusetts voter — regardless of where they stand on taxes.
The AG Had One Job
The proposal was simple. Reduce the state income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years. Supporters gathered more than 100,000 signatures from registered voters. They cleared every legal threshold the state requires to place a citizen initiative on the ballot.
Massachusetts law then requires the Attorney General’s office to write a fair, accurate summary of the measure. Campbell’s office got it wrong.
The summary stated that the long-term capital gains tax rate would not change. Under current law, it would. The capital gains rate is tied directly to the income tax rate. Lower one, and you lower the other. The summary said the opposite.
“The summary’s contrary statement is not a minor imprecision,” Justice Serge Georges Jr. wrote for the unanimous Supreme Judicial Court. “It is significantly misleading and likely to influence voters.”
This was the first time since 1951 that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) removed a ballot question due to a flawed Attorney General (AG) summary. It was not a close call.
One Sentence. No Answers.
Campbell’s office issued one response. Spokesperson Sydney Weiser said the office “respects the SJC’s decision and will continue to work diligently to ensure that ballot initiatives are summarized fairly and transparently.”
The statement did not say how the error happened. It did not name who reviewed the summary. It did not explain what changes the office will make.
Campbell is seeking reelection. The Democratic primary is September 1. The timing could not be worse for her.
Voters Did Everything Right. The AG Didn’t.
The SJC was explicit. Signers and petitioners did nothing wrong. Every requirement the law placed on them, they met. The disqualification rests entirely on a mistake made by the AG Andrea Campbell’s office.
A Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll released days before the ruling found 66% of registered voters supported lowering the income tax. The measure had backing from the Massachusetts High Technology Council, the Massachusetts Competitive Partnership, and the Pioneer Institute.
Jim Stergios of the Pioneer Institute said it plainly: “a technical defect in a summary prepared by the government” blocked a question that voters had fully qualified.
Opponents argued the cut would cost the state up to $5 billion annually. That’s a legitimate debate. It’s the debate Massachusetts voters never got to have.
Deaton Speaks. Markey and Moulton Go Silent.
Republican U.S. Senate nominee John Deaton was the only candidate in the race to respond publicly.
“Two-thirds of MA voters wanted a vote on lowering their taxes. But they now won’t get one — not because the idea failed — but because the people running our state government failed to do their job,” Deaton said. “That’s what one-party rule looks like: every lever of power held by the same political machine, and ordinary people pay the price.”
As of publication, neither incumbent U.S. Senator Ed Markey nor Democratic primary challenger U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton had issued any statement.
Walsh Also Silent
Republican attorney Michael Walsh, who is running to replace Campbell as attorney general, has also remained quiet. He has not publicly weighed in on the SJC’s decision, even though it is the biggest story of the year involving the office he wants to lead.
At the same time, Walsh is fighting to keep his own name on the ballot after Democrats accused his campaign of submitting fraudulent nomination signatures — a ballot fight that may help explain his silence.
No Opposition. No Accountability.
Deaton’s “one-party rule” framing is sharp. But the facts behind it are not in dispute.
Democrats hold 132 of 160 seats in the Massachusetts House. They hold 36 of 40 seats in the state Senate. They control the governor’s office, the attorney general’s office, and every statewide constitutional post.
Three out of every five state legislative races this fall will be completely uncontested, according to Commonwealth Beacon. When incumbents face no opposition, accountability depends on institutions doing their jobs correctly. Thursday’s ruling is what it looks like when they don’t.
It also fits a pattern. In 2024, 72% of Massachusetts voters approved giving the state auditor authority to audit the legislature. Beacon Hill has resisted implementing it ever since. Voters keep making their preferences known. The government keeps finding ways around them.
The Next Shot: 2028
The income tax cut is not on the November ballot. The campaign says it is exploring a resubmission for 2028.
That means more signatures, more time, and another trip through the same process — with the same office writing the summary.
Massachusetts voters did their part. The question now is whether the government will do its.
The democrats have been hijacked by the DSA, democratic socialists of America,anotherwords communists and they are hellbent on destroying this great commonwealth and country from within. Wake up America before it’s too late, vote out these communist subversive democrats.
She knew what she did she screwed us
Any costs related to the ballot initiative should be reimbursed by the AG’s budget.
Hard to believe this was fully incompetence and not intentional at this point.
When is no queens day being held?anyone?
This piece is doing the exact same thing that the summary did when written by the AGs Office: attempting to turn a extremely complex topic into a abstract and fundamentally missing a key component.
The summary, prepared by the AGs office for the signature approval included this line:
This proposed law would, over a period of three years, lower the tax rates on (1) personal taxable income consisting of interest and dividends, and (2) personal taxable income other than interest, dividends or capital gain income, such as wages and salaries.
This is exactly what the proposed law would approve. However, this did not actually happen, as a third part of capital gains is made up of both.
Both parties felt that it could be amended though communication. The AG’s Office argued that this is exactly the way the law is written and detailed legal analysis should not occur in the building of a summary. The petitioners argued that the AG’s Office should clarify the summary and just release an amendment.
They both agreed that it should be clarified.
Here is the kicker:
The SJC _rejected_ both of those options.
Independently, the SJC stated that the courts have no right to order an amendment. The courts need to act within constitutional guidelines: Article 48 provides no remedy for the incorrect process. A invalid summary, even with no malice, violates the law. All 85,000 signatures are called into question due to the signature sheets bearing ‘false’ information, as the text of the amendment was not included – signers were fundamentally misinformed by the text.
This isn’t the AGs Office being bad. It isn’t anyone being violated.
It’s the process of an system with constitutional bounds. If it doesn’t confirm, you don’t make the change.
All parties acted in good faith. The SJC made the call to enforce the law and not play Calvinball with process.
Everything worked as intended within a constitutional system.
We can agree to disagree.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) struck down a proposed ballot measure to reduce the state income tax from 5% to 4%, finding that Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s summary of the proposal was “significantly misleading” to voters.
The court identified specific problems with the summary. Most notably, it incorrectly stated that the measure would not lower the tax rate on long-term capital gains, when in fact it would.
Because of this error, the justices concluded that voters were deprived of a fair opportunity to evaluate a measure that had otherwise qualified for the ballot and received substantial support.
My money is on the SJC – NOT Campbell’s office.
It is totally unacceptable that AG Campbell and her staff did not send an acceptable summary of the proposed ballot question. Maybe if they spent less time suing or joining other states on suits against the Trump administration and paid more attention to the business at hand this kind of mistake ? would not have happened. Also why would the SJC after almost 75 years of not doing so remove a ballot question because of a flawed summary? The whole thing smells of the same dirty Massachusetts politics. As far as saying that this bill would cost the state $5 billion annually there are PLENTY of places where cuts can be made, the budget is out of control and growing every year. Stopping benefits, legal aid and the like to illegal immigrants would certainly be a good place to start which was close to $ 2 billion on 2025 alone. The money pit that is the MBTA would be another, double dipping , ridiculously high pensions for state workers, ridiculous salaries for ‘full time’ legislators and on and on and on. Lastly it’s no surprise the Legislature are thumbing their noses once again at the will of the voters. They are scared to death of what a full no holds barred audit of the books would reveal. This is a legislature that couldn’t even give the people a small break and suspend the gas tax when prices climbed dramatically. They just want more and more from the taxpayers because they can’t responsibly budget the money that is collected. They spend like drunken sailors on leave. It’s time to give back to the people of Massachusetts.