Court ruling denies voters the chance to decide on broad-based tax relief after failure by Attorney General’s office

The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance responded today to the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision to remove the proposed income tax cut from the November ballot after ruling that the summary prepared by Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office failed to fairly describe the measure.

“This is a disgraceful outcome for Massachusetts taxpayers and a direct result of the Attorney General’s failure to do her job properly,” said Paul D. Craney, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “More than 100,000 residents signed petitions to put tax relief before the voters. They followed the process, did the work, and earned a place on the ballot. Now, because the Attorney General’s office produced a summary the court found to be significantly misleading, voters are being denied the chance to decide for themselves whether Massachusetts should lower its income tax.”

The proposal would have gradually reduced the state income tax rate from 5 percent to 4 percent, providing broad-based tax relief to workers, families, small businesses, retirees, and taxpayers across Massachusetts. Supporters of the measure collected the required signatures during two rounds of gathering, earning the question a place before voters this November.

Instead, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Attorney General’s summary was significantly misleading because it failed to accurately describe the proposal’s effect on the state’s long-term capital gains tax rate. As a result, Massachusetts voters will not have the opportunity to vote on the income tax cut this November.

“The SJC did not reject the tax cut on the merits. The court did not say taxpayers were wrong to want relief. The court removed this question because the Attorney General’s summary failed to meet the constitutional standard required for ballot petitions. That is an extraordinary failure by an office that has enormous responsibility over the initiative petition process,” Craney continued.

The ruling comes as Massachusetts continues to face serious affordability and competitiveness challenges. Residents continue to leave for lower-cost states, families are struggling with high costs, and employers continue to warn that the Commonwealth’s tax climate makes it harder to compete. The income tax cut would have given voters a direct say in whether Massachusetts should become more affordable.

“This is becoming a disturbing pattern from Attorney General Campbell’s office. She spent months resisting the voter-approved legislative audit law and trying to stop a 2024 ballot question from being enforced. Yet when it came time to perform one of her office’s most basic responsibilities in the ballot process, preparing a fair summary for voters, her office produced language the SJC found to be significantly misleading. Had that same level of focus she applied to fighting the audit law been applied here, more than 100,000 petition signers would not have had their work wiped away and Massachusetts voters would not have been denied their chance to vote on tax relief,” said Craney.

“The people of Massachusetts deserved a vote on whether to lower the income tax from 5 percent to 4 percent. Instead, their voices were silenced over language written by the very office responsible for presenting ballot questions to voters. This decision should prompt serious scrutiny of the Attorney General’s role in the ballot process, because no future campaign should have its question thrown off the ballot due to mistakes outside the proponents’ control,” noted Craney.

“Today’s decision does not make Massachusetts more affordable. It does not stop people from leaving. It does not help small businesses compete. It simply protects Beacon Hill from having to face voters on tax relief. Massachusetts taxpayers still deserve relief, and the fight to make this state more affordable must continue,” closed Craney.