Elections – Initiative petition – Legislative stipends

Listen to this article

Where the attorney general has certified an initiative petition that would amend provisions governing legislative stipends, the measure concerns “internal legislative procedures” outside the scope of the initiative petition process.

“The Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court respectfully submit their answers to the questions set forth in an order adopted by the Senate on March 12, 2026, and transmitted to this court on March 13, 2026. The order concerns a proposed law before the Senate, House No. 5010, an initiative petition filed and certified in accordance with art. 48 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth.

“The measure proposed by the petition would amend provisions governing legislative stipends to condition part of the stipends on the Legislature’s ‘compliance’ with procedural prerequisites and performance goals established in the measure. The clerks of the Senate and the House of Representatives would be responsible for certifying compliance. …

“The Senate first asks whether the petition proposes a rule by ‘making changes to internal legislative procedures that are within the constitutional unicameral powers of the Senate.’ We conclude that the petition does propose a rule rather than a law.

“Because art. 48 authorizes voters to propose only laws and constitutional amendments, a measure that is neither a constitutional amendment nor a law lies outside the scope of the initiative process. … Accordingly, the Attorney General cannot certify an initiative petition as ‘in the proper form for submission to the people’ if the petition does not propose a law. …

“… Because the people’s power to make laws through the initiative petition process is equal to the Legislature’s bicameral lawmaking power, legislative pay is a proper subject of the initiative process. …

“The proposed measure, however, goes beyond adjusting legislative pay by using compensation as a means of regulating internal legislative procedures. Indeed, the principal purpose of the measure, as it states, is to promote transparent and efficient lawmaking by ‘link[ing]’ legislative compensation to ‘performance.’ Although an initiative measure cannot directly regulate how the two Houses of the Legislature carry out their duties, the measure here would effect this same purpose by conditioning the amount of the stipends on compliance with certain procedural prerequisites (organizing into committees established by the joint rules) and performance goals (holding public hearings and public markup sessions on all bills by certain dates and approving all committee reports at public meetings).

“Moreover, the measure would impose duties on the clerk of each chamber, including requiring them to examine legislative records and certify compliance. Yet the clerks are legislative officers whose duties are defined by their respective chambers through unicameral rulemaking.

“The measure thus concerns matters of ‘internal legislative procedures’ outside the scope of the initiative petition process. … To be sure, art. 48 leaves some room for measures that indirectly influence legislative procedures. … But by conditioning the amount of legislative compensation on compliance with internal procedural criteria and requiring the Houses’ clerks to monitor whether the criteria have been met, the principal purpose of the measure is to regulate the two Houses’ internal operations. … The measure thus constitutes a rule. …

“Because the petition fails to propose a law, it is ‘not in proper form for submission to the people’ (quotation and citation omitted), Oberlies v. Attorney Gen., 479 Mass. 823, 838 (2018), and the Senate need not vote on it. …”

Opinion of the Justices to the Senate (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-044-26) (11 pages) (Docket No. SJC-13909) (April 27, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.