BOSTON — The Supreme Judicial Court in an advisory opinion released Monday found the petition to bring the Legislature and governor's office under the Public Records Law is "proper" as a form of law.

 

"Its principal purpose is not to regulate the internal proceedings or operations of the two Houses," the court wrote. "Instead, its principal purpose is to provide the public with a new right of access to the records of the General Court and the office of the Governor, applying the existing public records law to those bodies alongside the other governmental bodies already subject to the law. "

 

The state Senate asked the Supreme Judicial Court to weigh in on whether public records petition was a violation of the state constitution. The Legislature is required to act on the matter by May 5; if not, supporters plan to put it on the ballot in November. 

 

Auditor Diana DiZoglio has championed the petition as a measure to bring greater transparency to the workings of state government and as part of her own battle to audit the Legislature. More than 70 percent of voters approved the audit question in November 2024. 

 

The Senate asked the court whether, first, the petition was a law or a rule that would interfere with its internal processes and, second, would it create "new and unprecedented authority" to the courts to determine challenges to records determinations.

 

The court offered "that the petition proposes a law and is therefore properly pending before the Legislature" and, for Question 2, concluded "that the proposed measure does not relate to the powers of courts."

 

The court declined to answer three following questions related to intrusions on Senate authority and General Court authority, and violation of rights of  "deliberation, speech and debate" granted to members and staff.

 

Those questions were "not amenable to consideration in the abstract," the opinion stated. 

 

"Instead, the better course is to wait and, if the initiative is enacted in its current form and is not amended by the Legislature, to consider any challenge to its constitutionality in the context of a future, concrete dispute. "

 

A second petition before the Legislature, which would have set compensation for legislative officers, was considered by the court as a rule rather than a law, as "Laws govern conduct external to the legislative body, while rules govern internal procedures." 

 

"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 court wrote. "The proposed measure, however, goes beyond adjusting legislative pay by using compensation as a means of regulating internal legislative procedures."