Gray v. Attorney General
52 N.E.3d 1065
Mass.2016Background
- In 2015 petitioners submitted Initiative Petition 15-12 to end Massachusetts’ use of the Common Core State Standards and to change related curricular governance and testing practices.
- The petition had six sections: (1) rescind the Board’s July 21, 2010 adoption of Common Core and restore pre-2010 frameworks; (2) require Massachusetts-based teacher and academic committees and copyrighting of frameworks; (3) create Governor-appointed review committees that must warrant equivalence to international standards before approval; (4) require annual public release (before each school year) of all prior-year diagnostic test items (questions, constructed responses, essays); (5) severability; (6) immediate effective date.
- The Attorney General certified the petition under art. 48 (initiative process) and provided a summary for signature gathering; petitioners collected sufficient signatures to transmit the measure to the Legislature and seek placement on the 2016 ballot if additional signatures were timely filed.
- Plaintiffs (voters) sued to quash the Attorney General’s certification and enjoin the Secretary from placing the measure on the ballot, arguing (inter alia) that the petition groups unrelated subjects in violation of art. 48, does not propose a law because it would rescind a contingent board vote, and lacks required enacting language.
- The Supreme Judicial Court reviewed de novo whether the petition satisfied art. 48’s related-subjects requirement and whether the Attorney General’s certification was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Initiative Petition 15-12 groups subjects that are "related or mutually dependent" under art. 48, The Initiative, II, § 3 | Petitioners: Sections 1–3 (curriculum/framework governance) and section 4 (testing transparency) are distinct and not operationally related or mutually dependent, so the petition improperly aggregates unrelated subjects. | Attorney General: Curriculum and assessment are inextricably linked; all sections impose procedural requirements on standards and assessments and thus share an operational common purpose. | Held: Petition fails the related-subjects requirement. Sections 1–3 and section 4 address separate public-policy issues (curriculum content vs. mandated annual release of test items) and lack sufficient operational connection; certification reversed. |
| Whether the petition fails to "propose a law" because it seeks to rescind the Board’s July 21, 2010 vote that had no operative effect before the December 2010 final vote | Petitioners: Rescission of a contingent July vote does not propose an operative law and so the initiative is defective under art. 48, II, § 1. | Attorney General: (Not addressed in depth by court because relatedness failure is dispositive.) | Held: Court did not reach merits because relatedness failure resolved the case; claim left unaddressed. |
| Whether the petition lacks the enacting language required by G. L. c. 4, § 3 | Petitioners: The initiative omits mandatory enacting clause language. | Attorney General: (Not addressed in depth because relatedness failure is dispositive.) | Held: Court did not reach merits because relatedness failure resolved the case; claim left unaddressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carney v. Attorney Gen., 447 Mass. 218 (2006) (establishes that an initiative’s provisions must form a unified statement of public policy and requires operational relatedness beyond abstract connection)
- Abdow v. Attorney Gen., 468 Mass. 478 (2014) (explains balanced construction of related-subjects requirement and applies operational relatedness analysis)
- Mazzone v. Attorney Gen., 432 Mass. 515 (2000) (related-subjects satisfied where provisions were directly or indirectly aimed at expanding and funding drug treatment programs)
- Albano v. Attorney Gen., 437 Mass. 156 (2002) (related-subjects satisfied where constitutional amendment would uniformly affect several statutes)
- Opinion of the Justices, 422 Mass. 1212 (1996) (invalidated petition provision that lacked meaningful relation to asserted common purpose)
- Student No. 9 v. Board of Educ., 440 Mass. 752 (2004) (explains that MCAS qualifies as a comprehensive diagnostic assessment)