The legal issue that the Supreme Judicial Court resolved today (PDF) is one that only a state constitutional law geek could love. But the upshot is quite substantial, and it gives the Senate the advantage in ongoing budget negotiations with the House.
Here’s what happened. As happens pretty much every year, the Governor filed his proposed budget; the House substantially changed it and passed its version; and then the Senate substantially changed what the House did and passed its own version. The House and Senate versions are now being reconciled in a conference committee.
In the course of all of this arose the question whether the Senate had broken the constitutional rule that requires that all “money bills” must originate in the House of Representatives. The Senate’s budget technically “amends” the House version, but the amendment is drastic: it takes the House bill, strikes out everything after the “be it enacted” clause, and then inserts its own version. And the Senate budget includes some tax changes that normally would have to originate in the House. Foul, cried the House! You can’t originate a money bill, so your tax changes are invalid.
Not so fast, replied the Senate. Because the House bill contained a tax provision of its own – namely, a semi-obscure provision having to do with the implementation of “combined reporting” (“This section delays until tax year 2017 the start of the deduction allowed to certain publicly-traded companies to offset increases in their net deferred tax liability that resulted from the commonwealth’s implementation of combined reporting”) – and that provision will increase the amount of tax revenue available to the Commonwealth next year, the House bill was a “money bill,” and the fact that the Senate drastically changed the House bill (by adding a bunch of new tax rules, among other things) doesn’t mean that the Senate “originated” a money bill.
Unable to agree, the House asked the Supreme Judicial Court for a ruling. And, in short, the House lost. The SJC ruled that the inclusion of the “combined reporting” provision in the House budget did indeed make that budget a “money bill,” and it further ruled that the Senate’s amending that bill by including a bunch of stuff that the House didn’t want did not constitute impermissibly “originating” a new money bill in the Senate. That is exactly the ruling that the Senate sought (PDF).
So, this round goes to the Senate. This issue is certainly more process- than outcome-oriented, but it should marginally strengthen the Senate’s hand in the ongoing budget negotiations.
as H1 from the governor? Isn’t the budget a ‘money bill’ by definition? Why does it need a tax provision in order to make it a money bill?
which is linked in my post, explains in detail what constitutes a “money bill” for constitutional purposes.
… and that’s always a big ‘if’…
… the budget is NOT a “money bill” if it makes no changes to the amount of revenue collected. Of course, by ordinary use of the term ‘money bill’ you’d be forgiven for thinking of it as such… but under the rules of legislation it is not a ‘money bill’.
So the bill originated in the House with just such a change in revenue collection. The Senate changed it very nearly wholesale and the House claimed that was un-constitutional origination.
As David noted, it’s about the process and not the outcome: It’s kinda like if you were allowed to mail a letter to the Governor and I was not… If you mailed a letter to the Governor and asked me to spell check and see if it had the right postage: whereupon I discarded your letter and replaced it with mine, and then mailed it. You might make the claim that I originated the communication with the Governor… but I could claim that since you addressed it and paid the postage, you originated it. The SJC, effect, said that your intent to communicate with the Governor, even though I may have discarded your original letter entirely, governs the rules of origination.
In a way the ruling upholds the Houses constitutional duty to originate the bills but will — going forward — require them to be more careful as they do it.
my question. Will do that. In the meantime, I’ll just note that it’s true, the budget bill doesn’t alter revenue collected, it only alters spending. I always assumed that legislation that altered either spending or revenue would be considered a money bill. But you learn something every day.
…is that taxes can only be initiated by the chamber closest to the people, hence the counterpart in the federal Constitution that specifically says bills raising revenue must originate in the House. As you probably know, both constitutions were written when memories of taxation without representation were very fresh.
Didn’t he predict this was a loser for the senate and Stan Rosenberg?
I guess the SJC think it’s unfair too?
N/t
He’s spending a lot of time here.
But—very close!
As for his prediction… he’s not the best at making them, so probably!
You inspired me to check out RMG to see what Ernie had to say.
Stan “won little,” and the Speaker “had the experience and wits to see a problem and send it to the SJC for guidance.”
But don’t worry, Stan’s not going to get anymore changes in the Senate. That’s it! The House is the man of the people. Those upper-crust elites in the Senate are too busy for further changes. They don’t need a fair shake at legislatin’ nothin’.
/Erniesnarkoff
His tax amnesty took in less than expected.
His early retirement for state workers had fewer enrollees than expected.
The income tax freeze didn’t get knocked out by the court.
He can’t raise taxes.
A friend is taking the package at the RMV. Her coworkers are holding out for ‘more’ and she thinks they are idiots. She is not being replaced and offices are slated to close. But the union keeps saying they can get more. They couldn’t go after Deval right when he hiked pension and insurance contributions UNLESS you retired because he was a Dem, but a GOP you can screw over and threaten. Uh-huh.
Charlie will veto the tax hike and throw it back into the teeth of the legislature with a messy override. The GOP caucus will increase commensurately in 2016 as Dems who voted to undo the tax rollback by the voters are picked off.
Porc, you’re arguing in advance of the political facts. The money bill fight – including the litigation thereof – is purely an intra-Legislative pissing contest between the leadership of the two Houses, with (I believe) little real effect on tax policy for FY ’16, for the following reasons:
First, it’s unlikely that any tax increase will get past conference.
Second, even if a mandated income tax reduction is deferred (which will trigger a veto), an override won’t get 2/3 of the House voting to sustain. The override won’t be “messy” because most rank and file Democratic House members are in accord with the Speaker on the matter of taxes (as are – privately – many Democratic Senators).
Third, given either of the above, there won’t be any major increase in the Legislative GOP caucus, because (exclusive of a few people like Bob Hedlund) the Massachusetts Republican Party couldn’t organize a bottle party in a brewery.
The size of the caucus has doubled in the lat few years, from 16 (when I was there) to 35+.
And it isn’t the RESULT of the veto – we all know the dems can do what they damn well please. It’s forcing the legislators to explain that override vote to the people back home.
…is that I remember 1990, when Bill Weld and Joe Malone were elected, along with sufficient Republicans in both Houses (including Bob Hedlund) to sustain a veto. Unfortunately for the Republican Party, they immediately threw away their political infrastructure.
However much I may differ with Sen. Hedlund on policy, I respect him both as a person and as a politician. Apropos the latter, I cite the fact that, after his defeat in 1992, he came back in 94 (beating a Delahunt in Norfolk County). You simply don’t have that many folk on your side of the aisle with those kind of political skills.
Re: your second sentence. An override would fail, and, analyzed District by District, there are no electoral downsides for any Democratic vote, pro or con.