This question would make most records held by the Legislature and the Office of the Governor public records under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. It creates two new exemptions, one for “policy development” and one for communication between the legislature and their constituents. The question is, in many ways, the continuation of a long-running feud between Massachusetts Auditor Diana DiZoglio and the Massachusetts state legislature (formally the “General Court”). She is joined this time by former gubernatorial candidate Danielle Allen (more on her in the discussion of Question #3). As I wrote two years ago when discussing 2024’s Question 1, relative to the ability of the Auditor to audit the legislature:
| This question is the result of a long-running feud between the Legislature and State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, who was previously a State Representative, a State Senator, and before that, an aide in the State House of Representatives. The origin of the feud is an incident that happened back in April of 2011, when DiZoglio was still working as a staffer in the State House, a State House court officer discovered DiZoglio and Braintree state Rep. Mark Cusack. This occurred after a late-night party when the chambers were closed, and initially looked like some hanky-panky had taken place. While House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s office issued a report saying nothing inappropriate happened and no rules were broken, rumors and gossip ricocheted around the building, creating a toxic workplace for DiZoglio. She later said she was sexually harassed in the aftermath of the episode. Eventually, she was fired by her boss, Representative Paul Adams, and she was additionally pressured to sign a termination and non-disclosure agreement prepared by House lawyers. Needless to say, the whole thing left a decidedly bitter taste in her mouth.
DiZoglio got the best revenge, however, by being elected to the Massachusetts House in 2013, to the Massachusetts Senate in 2019, and now to the position of State Auditor in 2023. But DiZoglio is not satisfied. She feels that neither the House nor the Senate (currently led by the 2nd ever female Senate President) were sufficiently responsive to her concerns, which include not only non-disclosure agreements in particular but also transparency in general. This has led to her ongoing battle with the legislature. The problem with her proposal is that it arguably violates the “separation of powers” doctrine embedded in both the Massachusetts and United States Constitutions. |
2024’s Question #1 passed overwhelmingly by 72%, but the issue has been tied up in court ever since. The legislature claims that the Question violated the “separation of powers” doctrine, and the case has gone up to the Supreme Judicial Court. As of early October 2026, the SJC has not ruled on the merits. Instead, the SJC round was procedural: DiZoglio filed directly in the SJC in February 2026, through her general counsel. The petition asked the court to authorize appointment of a special assistant attorney general so her office could be represented, and to directly compel legislative leaders to comply with document requests under the 2024 law. In March, the court blocked her from bringing on Shannon Liss-Riordan as outside counsel, instead of using the Attorney General. The day after argument, they gave AG Campbell 30 days to decide whether she would represent DiZoglio. Campbell then said she would let DiZoglio appoint an attorney to go into court on four specific records requests that DiZoglio had made to kick off the litigation. The legislature then gave DiZoglio the four requested documents, so that the question now is whether the case is moot. It’s still lingering in Superior Court, without the SJC having considered it on the merits.
And here we are.
Be sure that the current Question #1 is aimed directly at the Legislature. Yes, the office of the Governor is also included in the proposed changes, but the executive branch and all of its agencies are already fully included in the public records law. The Governor’s personal office is not, but the new law proposed to exempt discussions “related to the development of public policy,” which means that most of the records generated by the Office of the Governor would be exempt anyway.
No, the real target here is the legislature, and that will create a new fight over separation of powers, as the Auditor is in the Executive Branch and the Legislature is its own branch. They will not be open to having the Auditor decide whether the legislature complied with the public records law.
I think the likelihood is great that this question will pass overwhelmingly, just like Question #1 from two years ago. But it won’t make much difference. When it comes to questions related to the development of the budget, or the Commonwealth’s finances, the Executive Office for Administration and Finance already provides exhaustively detailed material in its budget submission, available on the Commonwealth’s website. Most of any additional materials will be governed by one of the two exemptions, either the policy development exemption or the constituent communications exemption.
And the rest of Question #1 will be tied up in court, just like Question #1 from two years ago.
