Voters subject governor and Legislature to public records law, but there’s no guarantee lawmakers will comply

ALL EYES, especially those that want to pry, now turn to the Legislature.

Massachusetts voters on Tuesday gave overwhelming approval to a ballot measure subjecting the House, Senate, and governor’s office to the state’s public records law. There’s just one catch: In the remaining eight weeks between the election and the start of the next lawmaking term, Democrats who control the Legislature might erase what voters decided in a landslide.

Although lawmakers have been openly grousing about the measure for months, they opted not to mount a formal opposition campaign, and few voters were swayed by legislative complaints about its constitutionality. The measure wound up smashing its way to victory. With about 80 percent of votes counted, the “yes” side led 86 percent to 14 percent.

By the time every ballot is counted, it could wind up a significantly larger margin of victory than the 2024 ballot question allowing the state auditor to probe the Legislature, a thematic predecessor that led directly into the records campaign.

It’s at once a signal that voters are eager for more transparency, a rebuke of the Democratic supermajority’s opacity, and a reflection that the idea — extend an existing law to parts of government that do not currently follow it — was a simple pitch hard to rebut on the campaign trail.

Auditor Diana DiZoglio, who led the charge for the 2024 measure and was the most prominent backer of the latest push to expand the public records law, said the vote sends “a loud and clear message to Beacon Hill that we’re not giving up and we’re not going away.”

“Time will tell how this plays out but it’s really important that we all stay alert and vigilant in the coming days and call our legislators to tell them it’s time to stop playing games,” she said in a statement, calling the margin a “tremendous victory.”

“Now there is more work to be done to make sure they don’t break the law or overturn it,” DiZoglio added.

Question 1 wasn’t the only ballot measure for which the Legislature set a lame-duck trap. But following Tuesday’s results, it’s the only one that might be sprung.

Lawmakers had also been weighing action to make tax refunds under the existing law known as Chapter 62F less likely, essentially offsetting Question 5, which sought to make those rebates more common. But voters rejected the measure, which was backed by several influential business groups, and the campaign conceded shortly before 8 a.m. Wednesday.

“Voters have chosen to retain the existing law,” Taxpayers for an Affordable MA, the group pushing the question, said in a statement. “That decision deserves respect, even as important questions remain about the growth of state spending, the cost of living and doing business, and Massachusetts’ ability to retain residents, jobs, and investment.”

Labor unions opposed the measure, arguing that forcing Beacon Hill to return money to taxpayers more frequently would eat away at the state’s ability to fund popular programs and services.

“The people of Massachusetts chose to protect critical state funding for healthcare, education, housing, and local aid; not slash state spending to pay for occasional tax rebates,” said Harris Gruman, executive director of the SEIU Massachusetts State Council and a leader of the opposition campaign. “Despite not running any advertising until the final week of the campaign, our grassroots campaign of working people defeated the corporate lobby at the ballot. Wealthy CEOs and investors spent millions of dollars this election cycle in a blatant attempt to buy themselves multiple tax cuts, and that money was completely wasted.”

At this point, it’s essentially a certainty that the governor’s office will be more forcefully required to comply with the existing public records law — which includes exemptions for categories such as personnel rules and investigatory materials — after governors in both parties have deemed themselves not covered on a case-by-case basis. The outlook for the House and Senate is an open question.

In the summer, the House and Senate each approved bills that would subject the governor’s office to the existing records statute, and create a new framework for their own members. Their proposals would codify access to some legislative documents, replacing a status quo in which the Legislature is entirely exempt from the public records law, but would make less information available than the ballot question does. All correspondence would remain private under the Legislature’s approach, for example, while the ballot measure subjects most emails to public release.

Crucially, both versions of the legislation included language declaring that it would map out the only way the public could acquire House and Senate records — a clause that legal experts suggest could supersede any law enacted at the ballot box.

Legislative leaders shuttled the House and Senate versions of the bill into a conference committee, a private negotiating panel tasked with finalizing a compromise text, where it’s sat unfinished since the end of July. Any accord will now emerge after voters made their decision.

Once a conference committee produces a deal, the text is final. Lawmakers can only approve or reject the entire bill, not amend it further. So if the negotiating panel embraces the controversial change, rank-and-file Democrats could be expected to fall in line and hand the political football to Gov. Maura Healey, who on Tuesday won her own reelection to another four-year term.

Late last month, Boston 25 reporter Kerry Kavanaugh asked Healey if she would veto a records bill from the Legislature that affects the ballot question’s outcome. The governor answered with a single word: “Yes.”

House and Senate Democrats wield sizable enough majorities on paper to override any gubernatorial veto.

Aides to the chairs of the conference committee, Rep. Alice Peisch and Sen. Cynthia Creem, could not be reached immediately early Wednesday morning.

Beacon Hill’s intervention could risk drawing the ire of voters, but none of the Legislature’s 200 lawmakers face reelection for another two years — and most go unopposed anyway.

Democratic lawmakers have been clear they dislike both ballot measures. The tax cap changes, they say, would inject uncertainty into the state budgeting process at a time when federal funding cuts are already pushing Massachusetts into a precarious position. Legislative leaders also acknowledge there is public appetite for more transparency, but they contend the ballot question as drafted would violate the constitutional separation of powers because the secretary of state, who is a member of the executive branch, would need to enforce its provisions against the legislative branch.

“While I agree that we should update the public records law, there are things in that ballot [question] that I would argue make it almost impossible for me to do my job,” Sen. Cindy Friedman, a top Senate deputy, told CommonWealth Beacon last month. “If I want to fix that, I have to then take that ballot initiative once it passes, if it passes, I then have to change it. And then what happens is all those people start screaming, ‘You’re not following the will of the people.’”

“So I’m stuck in a very difficult situation because it’s my job to make law. That’s what you elected me to do,” she added.

Any action to limit the scope of the voter-approved public records expansion could exacerbate an already-tense political battle.

Two years ago, 72 percent of voters backed a ballot measure explicitly empowering the state auditor to audit the Legislature. Top House and Senate Democrats resisted compliance for the better part of two years, saying the measure was unconstitutional but declining to ask a court to issue a decisive ruling.

A lawsuit attempting to unjam the gears is slowly advancing through Superior Court after an initial skirmish before the state’s highest court. DiZoglio, who has repeatedly clashed with lawmakers after previously serving in both chambers, lead the campaign for the records question and pitched it as a follow-up to the 2024 vote.

She’s pledged to pursue legal action if the Legislature curtails the scope of the ballot question.