A 5-2 decision (Justice Lenk concurring and Justices Budd and Gants dissenting).
From the majority opinion:
“We conclude that the initiative petition should not have been certified by the Attorney General as ‘in proper form for submission to the people,’ because, contrary to the certification, the petition does not contain only subjects ‘which are related or which are mutually dependent….
“It is immediately apparent…that the three provisions are not mutually dependent. As discussed, petitions seeking to impose a graduated tax rate or a tax on specific high-income earners previously have been presented to the voters of the Commonwealth as stand-alone initiatives. It is also evident that funds for ‘quality public education’ and ‘affordable public colleges and universities’ could be raised and provided to educational institutions separately from any expenditures on transportation, and that raising funds for ‘repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation’ could proceed without any expenditures on education, at any grade level.
“Although she certified the subjects as sufficiently related, the Attorney General has not articulated a common purpose between these spending priorities, beyond the abstract determination that both purposes are ‘broad areas of public concern.’ The interveners [advocating for the question to be on the ballot], for their part, assert that prioritizing spending for education and transportation will ‘strengthen[] the Massachusetts economy and set[] a foundation for inclusive growth.’ Some of the amici characterize the petition as intended “for economic advancement and social mobility” of specific groups within the Commonwealth. The difficulty the proponents have in stating the purported purpose of the initiative petition is itself telling.”
The opinion is here.
From the BMG Inbox:
Democratic Candidate for Lt. Governor Quentin Palfrey’s Statement on SJC Opinion on Fair Share Amendment
I am very disappointed that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down the Fair Share Amendment today.
As Lieutenant Governor, I will stand up for budget policies that ensure that Massachusetts has the resources it needs to invest in education, transportation, affordable housing, and real solutions to the opioid crisis and climate change.
We need a Governor and a Lieutenant Governor who will fight for economic justice and an economy that works for everyone.
The status quo under Governor Baker and Lt. Governor Polito is leaving too many hard-working families behind. They have not led. We will.
Can’t change the tax rate because it’s unconstitutional. Can’t change the constitution because it’s unconstitutional.,
How did we get here?
As the decision explains, the voters could amend the Constitution by initiative to eliminate the flat tax. It’s just that every time the question has been on the ballot, it has failed. This petition was an attempt to “sweeten the pot” for voters by providing for the use of the additional funds that the change in the tax law would raise. Whether this additional provision rendered the proposed amendment improper under Article 48 was debatable, but the SJC’s decision can hardly be a surprise. It seems to me that if you want to repeal the flat tax rule, you simply have to persuade more voters that that’s a good idea.
Or, the people could elect a Legislature willing to amend the Constitution. If the Fair Share tax amendment had originated with the Legislature instead of with the people (through the initiative process), there would have been no argument against its being on the ballot.
Per the tweet below:
Three card monte from the SJC, –instead of cups they hid the card under their robes. How anyone could detect a disconnect between raising money an spending money, in a state that has to balance its budget under the state constitution, is beyond me. I guess when you’re a judge and your social life revolves around listening to other rich people whine about taxes at parties , reality can give way to that whining.
Every hour of canvassing, every meeting and town hall and speech, every cent spent to advance this amendment: it all was wasted,
And that waste of progressive work and hope was, for many, exactly the plan.
Every caged toddler who will spend this day wailing for her mother can thank Massachusetts activists who spent time, and Massachusetts leaders who pleaded for them to spend time, campaigning for this bill rather than working to stop Trump and his collaborators in the House and Senate.
Next time we need a better law. We had a much better chance of changing the tax law in Massachusetts than doing anything about Trump & Co.
Unless we @SwingLeft and take back the House in 2018, nothing we do in Massachusetts tax policy will matter. Progressives need to put everything into taking back the House, starting now, and ignoring the poltroons that would rather see that effort wasted in parochial thumb-twiddling.
We can and must work in MA to win back house seats from Bangor to Omaha, from Red Wing and St. Paul to Aurora and Modesto,
It will take at least another six years to get to this point again in Massachusetts, By then, those caged toddlers will be ready for middle school.
That is a pretty short sighted approach to movement building Mark (Bernstein, not Bail who is a breath of common sense we need at BMG). The conservatives recognize that taking over statehouses and school committees is the grassroots foundation that builds their movement to take over America. It is how losses like the Goldwater loss eventually led to the Reagan Revolution. Progressives always shoot themselves in the foot by being pragmatic to a fault.
Whether it is negotiating with ourselves to a centrist position before proposing something to the Republicans eg. Obamacare which was watered down by our own side before the GOP had anything to say about it; or focusing on winning marginal races to retake the House and Senate when we have a freakin supermajority in our backyard and pressing needs from a crumbling T to school funding inequity.
It is a form of passive racism that Sudbury with its property taxes has access to one to one Chromebooks in its schools while I share a laptop cart with my 40 colleagues and 300 students in Roxbury. This amendment would have solved that problem and fixed the T. It would help make a dent in affordable housing. A movement is built on hope and upon proving policies that work at the local level can work at the federal level. We used to do this. In my own lifetime. Gay marriage, Romneycare, and providing free tuition to MCAS scholars were all proposals that passed our legislature. We can certainly pass ambitious legislation again if we forced our legislators to act.
Yes, we must we take the US House, but surely you understand that we are talking about a state issue here. The proponents of this measure did their best to play by the rules in place.
It also hurts us nationally if the supposedly bluest state in the union cannot pass a progressive income tax, which already exists at the federal level. When the T inevitably fails and our school performance ratings start to suffer due to funding inequities, than the right will blame that on failed tax and spend policies from Beacon Hill. This is the very argument that has already led to 20 years of Republican Governors in the last 28 years. When progressive policies are undermined in our backyard, in a state with a huge built in Democratic advantage, how can they possibly play in Peoria?
Mark, your Swing Left project looks worthwhile, but you’re doing a better job offending than enlisting me. (Your other projects also look interesting).
But…
We who worked on this question wasted our time? We should spend time working on your web project?
Would you say Swing Left was a waste if I volunteered for Annie Kuster and she lost?
Gosh, this could have been a positive exhortation to pay attention to the good work that SwingLeft is doing — rather than a chance to chuck around insults and told-you-sos. I would still welcome that, Mark!
I did put together a little ActBlue fundraising roster, linked on the right sidebar, for which I plan to do a fundraiser later in the summer. It could use a little love, for sure.
I don’t object to working to get rid of Trump, but I personally worked on getting signatures for this nomination. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people worked on getting signatures. There’s nothing I could have done about Trump or McConnell that would have been as useful.
So I heard today that the fair tax folks are all fired up, and ready to get to work on a constitutional version, emboldened by the broad support this proposition had in the polls.
Which we would not have without “ever hour, every meeting, every cent.”
I’m not going to call this a victory but it is not a waste unless we abandon the project.
I worked to get signatures for this law. Door-to-door, colleague-to-colleague. I just completed my last term as selectman, so I’m no longer directly involved in town budgeting, but I know how much we needed this revenue. The business world has/had a backup plan: repeal the sales tax increase.
Ultimately, it’s our chickens#*t legislature that put the sales tax into effect rather than address the income tax that was changed 20 years ago.
It’s also important to remember that I haven’t read the entire decision, nor have I read the dissent yet, but the decision seems to be legally tenable, and probably legally correct.
The 5 justices who voted to stop this were appointees of Charlie Baker, were they not? Now they will be cheered and offered drinks at the country clubs. They have helped keep the system rigged against the will of the majority.
I may be wrong, but I still believe that the decisions of the courts can be the result of legal thinking, not politics. I’m not saying that is the case here. Even if I read the decision and dissent, I’m not sure my unprofessional jurisprudence would suffice.
And weren’t these guys all approved by the Governor’s Council?
It was more of a mixed bag than that. Four of the justices voting to keep the question off the ballot were Baker appointees and one was a Patrick appointee. One of the two dissenting justices was appointed by Baker and one by Patrick.
I’m disappointed by the decision too. But this case was not going to be a slam dunk win.