Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a proposal to cut the state’s income tax from 5% to 4% will not appear on the ballot this fall.
Justices took issue with the summary written by the office of Attorney General Andrea Campbell. The Massachusetts constitution charges her office with providing “a fair, concise summary” to be printed on the ballot.
But the summary, justices found, was inaccurate: the proposed cut, if implemented as written, would lower the long-term tax rate on capital gains. Campbell’s office had written that it would not.
“The summary’s contrary statement is not a minor imprecision. It is significantly misleading and likely to influence voters,” Justice Serge Georges Jr. wrote for the court.
“We give some deference to the Attorney General’s judgment because, in preparing a summary, she ‘must inevitably form her own understanding of the meaning of the language in the initiative and its operation and effect,’” the justices later wrote, citing a 2014 decision. “Deference, however, is not abdication.”
A spokesperson for the attorney general’s office responded Thursday, saying: “We respect the SJC’s decision and will continue to work diligently to ensure that ballot initiatives are summarized fairly and transparently.”
Several people, including community advocate Lew Finfer, sued over the summary issue in January.
The push to get the question on the ballot in the first place began last summer, and was driven in part by the Pioneer Institute, which says it advocates for “liberty, personal responsibility, free enterprise, and limited, accountable government.”
Supporters of the ballot initiative shared their outrage Thursday.
“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,” wrote Jim Stergios, executive director of Pioneer Institute. “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 percent to 4 percent.”
“Today’s unprecedented ruling prevents Massachusetts voters from weighing in on a popular proposal to address the state’s cost-of-living crisis,” said Colin Reed, a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Opportunity Alliance, which was founded in 2024 to advocate for businesses and economic opportunity. “It does not change the underlying reality: Massachusetts remains one of the most expensive states in the nation, with too many residents leaving in search of greater opportunity and a lower cost of living.
“Today’s court decision does not eliminate the urgent need for action,” Reed added.
A January analysis by the Massachusetts Budget & Policy Center found the ballot question, if passed, would cut state revenues by $5 billion. They also argued it would disproportionately benefit the state’s wealthiest residents: The top 1% of income-earners would get an average tax break of over $30,000, while the lowest-income 20% would get an average cut of $44.
A litany of organizations that opposed the ballot question put out statements shortly after the ruling, including several unions and Massachusetts Voter Table.
“Today’s decision has made clear that billionaires cannot buy themselves sneaky tax breaks with their misleading and irresponsible ballot question,” Chrissy Lynch, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, wrote in a statement. “Working families in Massachusetts are better off with this question off the ballot.”
A poll released this week by The Boston Globe and Suffolk University found the tax cut was resoundingly popular, with 66% of respondents supporting it.
However, the initiative’s opponents point to another survey from MassINC Polling Group: Despite the 66% support, support dropped to 40% when potential voters were told about the cuts to state revenue and disproportionate benefit to wealthier residents.
Campbell responded to questions about the lawsuit in an interview on GBH’s Boston Public Radio last month.
“We don’t want ballot questions proceeding to the voters where we know it will not actually be implemented because of the court’s posture here, or implementation, or because they think it’s unconstitutional, et cetera,” Campbell said on May 12.
