The office of the state’s top election overseer is partially backing away from a document that helped spark a brawl this week over the implementation date of a legislative audit law championed by Auditor Diana DiZoglio.
The PDF document crafted by Secretary of State William Galvin’s Office says a successful voter-approved ballot question from the 2024 election takes effect “30 days after election” or “Dec. 5, 2024,” a date DiZoglio has used as evidence to immediately audit the Legislature even as its leaders resist.
But a spokesperson for Galvin said there “could be an error” in the portion of the PDF that outlines key milestones in the ballot question process, including the effective date of successful measures.
“There could be an error in the guide because the person who updated the guide counted 30 days from the election,” Galvin spokesperson Deb O’Malley told the Herald this week. “You can’t read just one portion of the guide. You do have to read the entire guide. There’s a lot of legal nuance here.”
DiZoglio has coupled the date in the ballot question guide from Galvin’s office with a provision of the state constitution that says voter-backed laws “shall become law and shall take effect in 30 days” after a state election so long as they are approved with at least 30% of total votes cast.
The guide from Galvin’s office, however, acknowledges that courts have “not definitively decided” whether the language of the constitution means 30 days after the election or 30 days after election results are certified by the Governor’s Council. The council certified local results earlier this week.
“If the petitioners want to ensure that the initiative measure takes effect at the earliest possible date, it is suggested that the petitioners state in the measure itself that it is to become effective immediately upon becoming law. That will mean it becomes effective immediately upon certification of the election results,” the guide says.
DiZoglio and her supporters did not include language in the legislative audit ballot question to make it effective immediately upon certification of election results, though the auditor has argued a plain read of the state constitution suggests the law should have taken effect Dec. 5.
In a statement to the Herald this past week, DiZoglio said “gaslighting is a serious problem on Beacon Hill.”
“Now that legislative leaders want more time to figure out how to break the law, is it also a mistake that the official guide says that this matter has not been definitely decided by the courts?” DiZoglio said.
Galvin this week maintained that it has long been his office’s interpretation that ballot questions take effect 30 days after election results are certified as votes are often still counted in the days after Nov. 5.
“(DiZoglio is) entitled to her opinion. If she wants to pursue it in a court, she can. I’m telling you what my opinion is. And if we all end up in court, we’ll tell the judges, and it’ll be their opinion that will count,” he told reporters.
DiZoglio is forging ahead with an effort to audit the Legislature after her initial attempt earlier this year ran into unwilling lawmakers in the House and Senate and a second try post-election again slammed into a brick wall.
She also asked Attorney General Andrea Campbell last month to approve legal action against the House and Senate to force them to comply with the audit, a request Campbell turned down by arguing the new law was not yet in effect.
DiZoglio sent another letter on Dec. 5 — the date she said the audit law took effect — to legislative leaders informing them of an investigation into the two branches that will focus on finances, state contracts and procurements, nondisclosure agreements, and other internal proceedings.
Attorneys for the Legislature have in the past refused to participate, saying the legislative audit law does not take effect until early next year.
Paul Craney, a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, which supports the audit, said Galvin should “stick with what his gut says and just follow what the state constitution says.”
“Instead, he’s changing dates once they become inconvenient for some powerful legislative leaders. It’s a bad look for him to blame his staff for something that is clearly not a mistake, but a cover-up for powerful legislative leaders,” Craney said in a statement to the Herald.
