492 Mass. 51
Mass.2023Background
- In June 2022 ten proponents submitted an initiative to the Attorney General proposing limits on individual contributions to independent-expenditure PACs ("Super PACs").
- The Attorney General declined certification in September 2022, concluding the proposal conflicted with free speech protections under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights as informed by federal First Amendment precedent.
- Proponents filed suit in October 2022 challenging the denial; the Attorney General offered a stipulated order (per Abdow practice) to permit collecting additional signatures during appeal, but proponents refused.
- Article 48 sets a tightly interlocked timeline keyed to the "assembling of the General Court": initial filing with the Attorney General by the first Wednesday in August, filing with the Secretary in September, a December deadline for the remainder of signatures, and later deadlines for ballot placement.
- The proponents did not submit the required additional signatures by the December 2022 deadline; the SJC held the appeals moot and declined to reach the constitutional merits (state and federal) or to exercise discretionary review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing with the Attorney General fixes the "assembling of the General Court" and the interconnected Article 48 timeline (i.e., can proponents delay the process to the next year) | Proponents: filing by the August deadline allows them to choose which assembling to target later, permitting delay to the next year (and time for appeals). | Attorney General: the Article 48 deadlines form a continuous, time-delimited process; filing in the August before a given assembling ties the petition to the immediately following session. | Held: AG's interpretation correct. Article 48 creates a continuous process; proponents cannot stop/start to shift to the next assembling. |
| Whether the appeals are moot because proponents failed to file required signatures by December 2022 | Proponents: their timely AG filing preserved their position and they intended to gather signatures in the next year. | Attorney General: proponents failed the December filing requirement and declined the stipulated order allowing signature gathering during appeal, making the case moot. | Held: Moot. Proponents did not submit the required signatures by the December deadline, so the court dismissed the appeals. |
| Whether the court should reach the constitutional merits (free speech challenges, including federal First Amendment questions) despite mootness | Proponents: asked the court to decide the merits. | Attorney General: court should not decide moot constitutional questions, particularly those implicating federal law. | Held: Court declines to reach the merits. It exercises judicial restraint on moot cases raising state and federal constitutional issues and declines discretionary review. |
Key Cases Cited
- 1A Auto, Inc. v. Director of the Office of Campaign & Political Fin., 480 Mass. 423 (Mass. 2018) (explains that state free-speech protections need not be broader than the Federal First Amendment regarding corporate political participation)
- Abdow v. Attorney Gen., 468 Mass. 478 (Mass. 2014) (recognizes practice of stipulated orders permitting signature gathering during appeals)
- Lockhart v. Attorney Gen., 390 Mass. 780 (Mass. 1984) (discusses mootness and the court's tradition of avoiding unnecessary constitutional decisions)
- Opinion of the Justices, 370 Mass. 869 (Mass. 1976) (construes Article 48 timing and the interconnected deadlines necessary to place initiatives on the ballot)
- Bogertman v. Attorney Gen., 474 Mass. 607 (Mass. 2016) (describes the initiative process and the interrelated signature and filing steps)
- Lynn v. Murrell, 489 Mass. 579 (Mass. 2022) (sets standards for when a court may decide important moot questions that are likely to recur)