By Tim Dunn
Boston Herald
(TNS)
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) struck down an initiative petition to lower the state income tax from 5% to 4%, stating that a summary of the proposal authored by the Attorney General’s office and used to collect required signatures was misleading and must be disqualified from appearing on the ballot.
The high court ruled in favor of eight Massachusetts voters who challenged AG Andrea Campbell’s summary of the Initiative Petition 25-18, title “[An] Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to Reducing the State Personal Income Tax Rate from 5% to 4%,” arguing that she did not provide a “fair, concise summary” of the proposed law as required by state law.
The proposal would have gradually reduced the state income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years, starting at 4.67% in 2027, then lowered to 4.33% in 2028, and then finally 4.00% in 2029.
Specifically, the court agreed with the interveners that Campbell falsely stated in her summary that the proposed law would not lower the tax rate on long-term capital gains, when in fact, as written, it would lower it.
Recommended Articles
“The challenged language states the petition would “lower the tax rates on (1) personal taxable income consisting of interest and dividends, and (2) personal taxable income other than interest, dividends or capital gain income, such as wages and salaries” (emphases added). According to plaintiffs, the emphasized exclusion tells voters the long-term capital gain tax rate will remain unchanged. Under current law, the petition would in fact lower it,” said Associate Justice Serges Georges in his decision.
“We agree; the summary misstates the petition’s impact. As written, the proposed law would reduce the tax rate for Part B taxable income, including income derived from wages and salaries. Because current law ties the tax rate for most Part B taxable income, i.e., long-term capital gain income, to the Part B rate, the proposed law also would reduce the long-term capital gain tax rate,” he said.
The petition was originally filed with Campbell’s office by ten registered Massachusetts voters in August 2025, which was then certified and sent to the Secretary of State’s Office in September. Campbell’s summary was then placed in the forms used to collect signatures in order to certify the petition for the ballot.
“This proposed law would, over a period of three years, lower the tax rates on (1) personal taxable income consisting of interest and dividends, and (2) personal taxable income other than interest, dividends or capital gain income, such as wages and salaries,” Campbell’s summary stated incorrectly states. “Both tax rates were 5.00% for tax year 2024. The proposed law would set both tax rates at 4.67% for tax year 2027, 4.33% for tax year 2028, and 4.00% beginning in tax year 2029.”
Proponents of the measure collected and submitted to the Secretary of State over 85,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot by December.
Fiscal watchdogs like the Pioneer Institute and the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance slammed decision as well as Campbell for the misleading summary that resulted in the disqualification of the petition.
“This is a disgraceful outcome for Massachusetts taxpayers and a direct result of the Attorney General’s failure to do her job properly. More than 100,000 residents signed petitions to put tax relief before the voters. They followed the process, did the work, and earned a place on the ballot,” MassFiscal Executive Director Paul Craney said in a written statement.
“The SJC did not reject the tax cut on the merits. The court did not say taxpayers were wrong to want relief. The court removed this question because the Attorney General’s summary failed to meet the constitutional standard required for ballot petitions. That is an extraordinary failure by an office that has enormous responsibility over the initiative petition process,” Craney continued.
The Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research is calling the SJC ruling a “serious disappointment,” pointing to Massachusetts remaining as one of the highest tax and cost burden states in the U.S. while also seeing some of the highest outmigration rates in the country.
“The Court’s decision rests on a drafting error in the Attorney General’s summary of the petition—a matter entirely outside the control of voters and petition signers. As a result, the people of Massachusetts will be denied the opportunity to decide whether the Commonwealth should reduce the income tax rate from 5 percent to 4 percent,” the Pioneer Institute said in a statement.
“No ballot question has ever been removed due to a minor drafting mistake. Today’s decision means that a technical defect in a summary prepared by the government can prevent voters from considering a question that otherwise qualified for the ballot,” it said.
Campbell’s office responded with a statement: “We respect the SJC’s decision and will continue to work diligently to ensure that ballot initiatives are summarized fairly and transparently.”
Since 2020, Massachusetts has seen a net domestic outmigration of 182,000 residents, particularly between the ages of 26 and 34, the Pioneer Institute says. This as Massachusetts continues to experience declining job growth, joining only a handful of other states that has continued to lose jobs since the end of the COVID pandemic.
The push to lower the state’s income tax rate has seen positive reaction amongst Bay State voters in recent polls, but has been criticized as a “gimmick” by Beacon Hill leadership, including the likes of Gov. Maura Healey, Senate President Karen Spilka and House Speaker Ron Mariano.
“Neither the Attorney General’s nor the interveners’ arguments persuade us. The summary tells voters that the proposed law would “lower the tax rates on … personal taxable income other than … capital gain income.” In ordinary English, “other than” means “except for” or “besides,” Justice Georges said.
Photo caption: Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell (Nancy Lane/Boston Herald/TNS)
_______
©2026 MediaNews Group Inc. Visit at bostonherald.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency LLC.
Sign in to get access to this free resource, and all of our whitepapers and reports.
Download this content today!
Register Now Already registered? Click here to Log In
