‘Millionaire tax’ ballot question upheld

Listen to this article

The Supreme Judicial Court has rejected a challenge to the attorney general’s summary of a proposal that would impose a tax on the portion of annual income over $1 million to be used — subject to appropriation by the Legislature — for education and transportation purposes.

The plaintiff challengers argued that the AG’s summary impermissibly misleads voters because an increase in education and transportation spending is not, in fact, guaranteed, as the Legislature could use the monies newly appropriated under the amendment to replace prior sources of education and transportation spending, thereby keeping that spending constant, and then redirect those prior sources of spending elsewhere, thereby increasing state expenditures in a wholly different area.

The SJC was not convinced.

Justice David A. Lowy wrote for the unanimous court that the summary need only describe the amendment itself, which the SJC found it did, in compliance with Art. 48.

“The proposed amendment does not address how the Legislature may spend monies other than those raised by the amendment. Consequently, the Attorney General’s summary need not opine on whether, as plaintiffs contend, monies that historically have been spent on education and transportation could, at some future point, be spent elsewhere,” Lowy stated.

The court ordered the entry of a judgment declaring that the AG’s summary was in compliance with the requirements of Art. 48, as amended by Art. 74, and that the AG and secretary of state’s one-sentence statements describing the effects of a “yes” and “no” vote were in compliance with the requirements of G.L.c. 54, section53.

The 16-page decision is Anderson, et al. v. Attorney General, et al., Lawyers Weekly No. 10-071-22.