Question #6 creates a “Nature for All” fund that would receive some state taxes collected on the sale and use of sporting goods and recreational vehicles, and admission to golf courses. Specifically,
- It earmarks 50% of state sales taxes on these three items to the fund;
- It does not increase total taxes or spending, but just earmarks a specific amount for a specific purpose (the total earmark is estimated to be about $65 million annually);
- The entire thing is still “subject to appropriation” by the legislature.
This is significant, and it’s drafted that way because under Article 48 (which governs the initiative petition process) ballot proposals that make a “specific appropriation of money from the state’s treasury” are deemed unconstitutional and would likely not be certified by the Attorney General.
What the question actually does then is:
- Create the fund, the 15-member board, and the spending rules for the Fund;
- Allow public and private donations to the fund;
- Shield the Fund from having surplus amounts transferred out of the Fund at the end of the year.
Opponents of the question object that it’s really the legislature’s job to decide how this tax money is distributed as part of their budget deliberations, and that is essentially correct. If you have too many of these kinds of earmarks then you also implicitly cut off other worthy programs. It’s not the best way to do budgeting.
I will also note that this kind of proposal is normally just advanced through ordinary legislation and doesn’t become the subject of an initiative petition. And that is precisely because (1) it cannot legally require a specific appropriation, and (2) it undermines the normal budgeting process by seeking to require a specific earmark (despite the legal incapacity).
Nevertheless, I think it’s quite likely that it will pass. Who wants to vote against funding the protection of natural resources?
In the end I don’t think it will matter that much. While it creates a kind of “moral” obligation to respect the will of the voters, the legislature can (and eventually will) amend it to be harmonized with the normal budgeting process. In the meantime, the Commonwealth will add one more fund to dozens and dozens of existing funds, and Mass Audubon, which proposed the initiative will have a specific fund for which they can raise donated funds.
