Politics
Campbell Says Public Records Ballot Question Is on Different Legal Footing Than Legislative Audit
Attorney General Andrea Campbell says the voter-approved expansion of public records law covering the Legislature and governor's office raises distinct constitutional questions from the ongoing legislative audit fight, and her office is moving with urgency to implement the will of the voters.
Attorney General Andrea Campbell is drawing a legal distinction between the voter-approved expansion of Massachusetts' public records law and the long-running battle over auditing the Legislature, signaling that her office will treat the two voter mandates differently as it weighs constitutional concerns.
More than 85% of voters backed Question 1, which newly subjects most records held by the Legislature and the governor's office to the state's existing public records law. The measure passed even as lawmakers and Auditor Diana DiZoglio remain locked in a dispute over a separate 2024 voter law that empowers the auditor to audit the Legislature.
Campbell told reporters Tuesday that the audit question has carried scope concerns since the moment it was certified.
"I think this is slightly different in that, at least in the context of the audit question, there were from the very beginning â even when we certified it â concerns about scope and if it went too broad, whether that would be unconstitutional," Campbell said. "Because there are certain instances where a court would deem an audit of the Legislature by the auditor to be unconstitutional."
She described public records requests as a fundamentally different context. "Our goal is to work as swiftly as possible to satisfy the will of the voters, while also, of course, protecting the Constitution," she said.
The Legislature has raised constitutional objections to the audit law, and DiZoglio has framed implementation of the public records measure as a continuation of that fight. Last week, lawmakers indicated they were considering changes to Question 1 and continued to question its constitutionality â a prospect that could put the Legislature on a collision course with the overwhelming majority of voters who approved it.
Campbell, who was reelected last week, said her office is reviewing all of the election results. Voters passed three other new laws alongside Question 1 and chose to keep both the 2024 firearms law and the state's legal recreational cannabis market.
"We will review all of the ballot results. We get them into the office. We analyze them. We have to then go through an additional analysis, including looking at always constitutionality, et cetera," she said. "So, we're at the beginning stage of this. But rest assured, we always take the voice of the voters, and not only prioritize it, but work with a sense of urgency to implement what they've passed."
The standoff matters for residents who have long pressed for greater visibility into how the Legislature and governor's office conduct public business. Question 1's lopsided margin gives supporters a strong claim to swift implementation, while the constitutional questions raised by lawmakers and the attorney general's careful parsing of the two voter laws suggest the fight over transparency in state government is far from settled.