Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell is defending her office’s handling of the current crop of ballot questions after the Supreme Judicial Court tossed a question that could have brought rent control back to Massachusetts.
The court found Tuesday that by exempting housing units operated by religious institutions, the proposed measure violated the state Constitution’s prohibition on ballot questions that relate to religion or religious institutions.
Justices agreed that Campbell’s office should not have allowed the question to move forward to the ballot.
In an interview on GBH’s Boston Public Radio, Campbell called the result unexpected.
The move comes less than a week after the Supreme Judicial Court threw out another ballot question that could have reduced the state income tax from 5% to 4%. In that case, the court found that the summary written by Campbell’s office erred by incorrectly stating that the measure would not affect income from long-term capital gains.
Asked by host Jim Braude if she takes accountability for the tossing of the income tax question, Campbell replied, “I always take responsibility.”
“It’s a flawed summary. The court pointed that out,” she later added. “We made a mistake, right? We are now reviewing how we do better, and we will do better going forward.”
But Campbell also argued that her office actually has a high rate of success when it comes to certifying ballot questions.
“This was a record number of ballot initiatives we received in … the history of the office,” Campbell said. “It was 47 — we reviewed 47 ballot initiatives, we certified 44. Six were challenged. Three were successful in [weathering] those challenges and three of them were not, including rent control, the [legislative] stipend issue and income tax.”
She praised her office’s attorneys and staff but also said that her team would be reviewing the decision closely to reexamine their processes for ballot questions.
“No one should expect us to get a perfect result. No organization could,” Campbell said.
“We engage with every stakeholder, the proponents and the opponents, and that’s not even a process that every government follows, but we do because we want to hear all sides,” she continued. “And when we get it wrong, we say to all sides, ‘We got it wrong.’”
Campbell went on to say that, when her office sent a draft summary of the income tax cut proposal to supporters and opponents, no one objected to the capital gains section.
At this point, Braude asked: “Do you think [the supporters] wanted you to get it wrong because it helps their, would have helped their cause?”
“I can’t speak for that,” Campbell replied.
“That’s a question for the proponents,” she later added.
Campbell did not identify specific changes her office might make in the future to avoid having ballot questions tossed out due to flawed summaries or other missteps.
