|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Question 1, the newly passed government transparency ballot measure, will make most records held by the Legislature and governor public records — unless the Legislature acts soon to roll it back.
The ballot measure, which passed with 86% of the vote statewide and 81.6% in New Bedford, will become law on Jan 1, 2027. But the Legislature is considering two bills that would roll back some of Question 1’s transparency efforts.
State Auditor Diana DiZoglio championed the ballot measure. In a statement sent to The Light, she said that she is grateful to the voters for making their voices heard on this issue.
“Last night’s vote sends an unmistakable message to Beacon Hill — the people of Massachusetts are demanding transparency, accountability, and a government that answers to the people it serves,” DiZoglio said. “Let me be clear: lawmakers should not interpret this election as an invitation to rewrite the law to protect themselves, yet again, from the public’s mandate.”
The ballot measure has two exemptions. Legislative documents related to the development of public policy will not be made public. Also, communications between legislators and their constituents will not be public if they’re related to government services or interaction with a government agency.
Until now, Massachusetts has been the only state where the Office of the Governor, the Legislature and the judiciary are all exempt from public records law – an exemption that has long been criticized for its lack of transparency. Question 1 is meant to change that.
According to a statement from the governor’s office, “Governor Healey supported Question One and will honor the will of the voters.”
The ballot measure’s approval occurred while two hotly contested bills sit in a House-Senate conference committee – both with different approaches as to how the public records law would apply to the Legislature. Either bill would undo some of Question 1’s efforts for more transparency by exempting the Legislature from the public records law again. House leaders called this move unconstitutional.
The House-passed government transparency bill does not apply current public records law to the Legislature. Instead, it would create a specific process for people to request “legislative records” from over a dozen different categories, most of which are already public.
The Senate bill establishes a more structured process for requesting legislative records, but it also doesn’t apply the public records law to the Legislature. It would authorize the governor’s office to withhold communications, memoranda, drafts or other documents related to developing policy positions.
The Senate version would also provide access to some records that are not explicitly included in the House’s version of the bill. It would require the Legislature 10 days to provide it to the requestor. The amendment also creates a “shield law” that would prohibit the government from compelling journalists to reveal confidential sources unless proven necessary.
Senate President Karen Spilka, who criticized Question 1, said in a statement to The Light that the public should have a process to request documents from the governor and the Legislature.
“As with many ballot measures, there are details to be worked out, but it’s clear that this is something the voters want and deserve,” Spilka said.
Sen. Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford, expressed his support for Question 1 in a statement to the Light:
“The voters have demanded greater transparency from the legislature by an overwhelming margin, and this ought to be implemented swiftly and thoughtfully. I voted for the audit and question one, and I have consistently opposed any measure on Beacon Hill that sought to weaken the voter’s clear directive or that sought to preempt the ballot initiative process.”
Rep. Christopher Hendricks, D-New Bedford, who said he voted yes on Question 1, said that he thinks there should be as much government transparency as possible.
“Transparency is a huge deal and I think that having blanket exceptions for the Legislature and the governor isn’t in the interest of full transparency,” Hendricks said.
Hendricks acknowledged that 72% of voters approved of the 2024 ballot measure that would have given the state auditor the authority to audit the Legislature, but said that it would have had unbelievable constitutional issues.
“That is not a constitutionally sound process,” Hendricks said. “I think stuff like this is a way where we can accommodate that and make things more transparent.”
He said that the House already passed a bill this session that gave DiZoglio the authority to audit what she was asking for.
“Certainly Question 1 is more expansive than how the House process would have operated,” Hendricks said. “I think streamlining the process for legislative documents was the point behind the House bill, independent of how Q1 went.”
ACLU Massachusetts released a statement on Wednesday, saying they are pleased that voters have shown support for increased government transparency, but are concerned that Question 1 sets up a constitutional challenge.
“Even if the law survives the inevitable legal hurdles, lawmakers will need to make case-by-case decisions on whether each individual document can be made public — opening the door for endless, expensive litigation on each request. This is not conducive to transparency. Quite the contrary,” the statement said.
“To ensure immediate and ongoing public access to important government records, we hope the legislature will adopt the strong public records bills that passed the House and Senate earlier this year,” the statement continued. “Doing so would immediately grant the public access to a wide range of documents, while preserving the legislature’s constitutional freedom to debate policy in private.”
Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, said that Massachusetts has long been an outlier in the country when it comes to government transparency.
“What the vote showed us was just how overwhelmingly the public supports changes to the law that would make our state government more transparent,” Silverman said.
Silverman also said that the support for Question 1 reveals how much Massachusetts residents want to make informed decisions about who represents them.
“We don’t have all of the access and transparency necessary to make those informed decisions right now,” Silverman said.
Jonathan Cohn, the policy director for Progressive Massachusetts, said that the ballot measure spoke to a public need for a government that is transparent and accountable to the people.
“Government can often feel distant to people,” Cohn said. “They want to know that their elected officials are acting in the public interest.”
Cohn acknowledged that even though the House and Senate passed their own versions of legislation on public records law, there will still be greater transparency from the governor’s office and the Legislature.
“I think the Legislature needs to be mindful of the fact that with an 86% vote of the public, completely overhauling that result is not a viable option,” Cohn said.
John Griffin, the executive director of Partners in Democracy MA Action, said during a post-election briefing hosted by Partners in Democracy that the public support for Question 1 must be honored.
“The people spoke loudly and clearly,” Griffin said. “Our primary interest is making sure that the voice[s] of the people are honored.”
Danielle Allen, chair of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, said during the post-election briefing that she is thrilled with the landslide victory of Question 1.
“The people of Massachusetts have communicated as clearly as it is possible to communicate that the era of transparency and responsiveness is here,” Allen said.
Nicole Abrams is a journalism student at Boston University, covering state government for The Light as part of the Boston University Statehouse Program. Email her at nabrams@newbedfordlight.org.
