DiZoglio At Odds With Beacon Hill On Audit Law Effective Date

Auditor Diana DiZoglio (right) speaks to reporters in her office on Dec. 4, 2024 while Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance spokesperson Paul Craney (left) watches. (Sam Drysdale/SHNS)

Alison Kuznitz | SHNS

Auditor Diana DiZoglio claimed Wednesday the voter law giving her office explicit authority to audit the Legislature will take effect Thursday, an interpretation contested by the state's top elections official.

"This law does take effect tomorrow," DiZoglio said at a press conference held alongside the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance and Act on Mass.

The Methuen Democrat's presser came a day ahead of the one-month anniversary of the election in which voters overwhelmingly supported Question 1, and she backed up her belief by pointing to information she said her office received from Secretary of State Bill Galvin and Attorney General Andrea Campbell -- a perspective that Galvin balked at later Wednesday.

A poster in DiZoglio's office Wednesday displayed in large print language from the state constitution that states approved ballot measures "shall take effect in thirty days after such state election." In smaller print, the excerpt continued, "or at such time after such election as may be provided in such law."

Auditor DiZoglio Press Conference Audio Dec. 4, 2024

DiZoglio called the constitution "crystal clear" and said she plans to send a letter to lawmakers Thursday asking them to meet with the auditor's office to begin an audit they have resisted.

"For all of the arguments that we hear about constitutional challenges, I would think that legislative leaders who are so concerned with constitutionality want to follow the constitution," DiZoglio said. "So we're asking the Legislature to follow the constitution and to start cooperating with our office."

Galvin told the News Service he disagrees with DiZoglio's interpretation, and his office maintains successful ballot questions do not take effect until 30 days after election results are certified by the governor and Governor's Council, which happened Wednesday afternoon -- shortly after DiZoglio's event. That would mean Question 1 takes effect Jan. 3.

Ballot questions can only take effect sooner if their language explicitly sets an earlier effective date, according to Galvin's office.

The secretary insisted Wednesday that the voter law will take effect "30 days from today."

"We still were counting ballots 10 days after the election because we were required to receive ballots from overseas balloters, and in fact, for three days from people in Massachusetts," Galvin said. "So the idea that you could count those days when you didn't know the outcome of the election is ridiculous."

DiZoglio offered a different interpretation, referencing a ballot question guide from Galvin's office that says certain successful measures take effect on Dec. 5. The guide casts some uncertainty over how to interpret the 30-day effective time frame.

"The Constitution states that a law proposed by an initiative petition takes effect thirty days after the state election, or at such time after the election as may be provided in such law," the guide states. "The courts have not definitively decided whether this means thirty days after the election, or thirty days after the certification of the election results by the Governor's Council, which usually occurs in late November or early December. 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."

A Galvin spokesperson said the guide was meant to eliminate ambiguity for initiative petitioners, who can put an explicit effective date within a ballot question. Question 1 did not mention any effective date. Question 4, which did not win voter approval, had set an effective date for Dec. 15, 2024 -- a timeline that would have superseded the 30-day count from certification, the spokesperson said.

The matter is unsettled in the guide, Galvin said, because of a "bigger issue" and "some vagueness" in the constitution over when exactly laws take effect.

"I think it would be a chaotic situation to say, well, the election was the other day, let's just start counting now," Galvin said. "No, that's not the way we do it."

Pursuing Litigation Through The AG's Office

The auditor also signaled Wednesday she's gearing up for a legal fight with the Legislature, which will likely drag Campbell into the sparring. Top lawmakers have repeatedly argued DiZoglio's effort would violate the constitutional separation of powers.

On election night, DiZoglio vowed to revive her probe of the Legislature, after having accused lawmakers of not complying with her office's pre-election attempt to audit the inner workings of Beacon Hill. Days later, she sent a letter to House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka outlining her intended "performance audit."

Senate and House counsels, in a reply letter on Nov. 26, told DiZoglio that her request was "untimely." Senate Counsel James DiTullio and House Counsel James Kennedy took the position that the 30-day clock on ballot laws "does not commence until the election has been duly certified by the Governor and the Governor's Council."

DiZoglio on Wednesday used ammunition from Campbell's office to solidify her claim of a Dec. 5 effective date. She referenced a Nov. 27 letter from Campbell, in which the AG also quoted the constitutional provision that says ballot laws "shall take effect in 30 days after such state election."

Campbell's office told the News Service the letter does not take a position on whether the new law takes effect 30 days after the election or 30 days after results are certified.

"If and when a timely request to initiate litigation is made, as the Commonwealth's chief law officer, I will consider the appropriate next steps," Campbell wrote. "In so doing, I will consider all pertinent principles of law and every fact available to me, including the law approved by the voters through Question 1."

DiZoglio said she'll consult with Campbell's office should the Legislature not respond to her Thursday request.

"We are pursuing litigation through the attorney general's office," DiZoglio said when asked about the possibility of lawmakers not cooperating with her office's audit attempts.

DiZoglio acknowledged she is concerned that Campbell may choose to decline representing the auditor's office, saying she was previously "denied access to the court."

"I am choosing to proceed with cautious optimism at this point and ask my good friend and colleague, Attorney General Campbell, to support the will of the people, understanding that this is no longer a disagreement between colleagues of hers up on Beacon Hill," DiZoglio said. "This is the people of Massachusetts, who have now spoken and made crystal clear that they expect the Legislature to comply."

The auditor urged the public to again support her goal of auditing the Legislature and bringing Campbell on board.

"I am asking folks, please call the attorney general. Let your voices be heard and ask the attorney general, if it needs to come to that point, which it's seeming as though it very well may, that the attorney general stand up for the voters, have the backs of the people of Massachusetts, and represent the will of the people in court if need be," DiZoglio said.

A Campbell spokesperson did not answer a News Service question about whether the AG intends to represent DiZoglio's office should the matter escalate to litigation. Campbell last week said her office would not intervene with the voter law until a "legal dispute" arises between DiZoglio and the Legislature.

DiZoglio, asked about the potential harm of waiting until Jan. 3 to embark on her audit instead of Dec. 5, accused the Legislature of breaking the law.

"We have historical precedent in place that has already demonstrated that the Legislature was already audited until recent years," DiZoglio said, as she referenced more than 100 audits of the Legislature that her office previously conducted.

She added, "This ballot initiative was to codify the law and make explicit what is already the law, so that there does not continue to be a way out or opportunities to interpret the law in a way that serves Beacon Hill powerbrokers instead of the people of Massachusetts."

Paul Craney, spokesman for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, said outside groups can also choose to get involved and sue, with the aim of compelling the state to uphold the voter law. Craney, asked if MassFiscal would sue, said "we're always looking to sue the state."

Another Engagement Conference

Tensions were also already rising between DiZoglio and the House on Wednesday.

Thirty minutes ahead of the press conference, House Business Manager Colleen McGonagle emailed DiZoglio to alert her the new House rule giving her office the ability to select a private, independent firm to conduct a financial audit takes effect July 1, 2025. McGonagle requested DiZoglio's availability for an "engagement conference" in January. DiZoglio has described the House's rule as "slapping voters in the face."

Asked about the email that Mariano's office circulated to reporters, DiZoglio said she wanted to remind the speaker she is no longer a representative, and that House rules do not apply to the auditor's office.

"We all need to follow the law -- that's this office, that's the House of Representatives, that's the state Senate. And any of their rules do not supersede the law, just like Massachusetts General Laws do not supersede the constitution," DiZoglio said. "The constitution reigns supreme."

[Sam Drysdale and Sam Doran contributed reporting.]