A group of union members in Massachusetts and a director of a local nonprofit filed a lawsuit Thursday with the state’s highest court to block a potential ballot question that would lower income tax from appearing before voters in the November election.
The legal challenge alleges the summary of the ballot question prepared by Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office fails to meet constitutional requirements because it does not tell voters that the measure cuts the state’s income tax rate on long-term capital gains.
Jazmine Woodberry, a phlebotomist at Boston Medical Center and a member of 1199SEIU, said the question represents the “same far-right billionaire agenda that Trump and the GOP have implemented nationally: massive tax breaks for the ultra-rich, and painful budget cuts for the rest of us.”
“And just like Trump’s tax cuts, this initiative would hide an enormous giveaway to the richest 1% within the appearance of a broad-based tax cut. We won’t let these out-of-touch billionaires abuse the ballot process to buy themselves a massive tax break,” Woodberry said in a statement.
Chris Keohan, a spokesperson for the ballot question committee, Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, said the group is “fully confident” that the summary written by Campbell’s office is “accurate and fair.”
“While our opponents continue to fear-monger, we will focus on the affordability crisis here in Massachusetts. The facts are clear. This ballot question will put $1,300 (on average) back in the pockets of working families across the Commonwealth at a time when it is desperately needed,” Keohan said in a statement.
Campbell’s summary said the proposed ballot question would lower tax rates on personal taxable income like wages and salaries, but not income from capital gains, or profits earned from selling things like stocks, bonds or real estate.
Here’s the exact language of the summary:
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. 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.
The proposed law would take effect over a period of three years, according to Campbell’s summary.
Lisa Goodheart, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the Massachusetts Constitution requires the forms campaigns use to collect signatures for ballot questions, and the ballot voters receive during an election, must present a “fair, concise summary” of the measure.
But Goodheart argued in court documents that Campbell’s summary “is fundamentally unfair, because it is inaccurate and misleading on a key point.”
“It fails to inform petition signers and voters of a critical feature, which is that the initiative proposes to reduce the tax rates applicable to all three of the statutorily-defined categories of personal taxable income,” Goodheart said in the lawsuit filed with the Supreme Judicial Court.
A spokesperson for Campbell as well as spokesperson for Secretary of State William Galvin, who is also named in the lawsuit, both declined to comment.
Business groups behind the ballot question argue that cutting the state income tax from 5% to 4% will make Massachusetts more attractive to businesses and residents with lower costs of living.
But unions opposing the measure contend it will benefit the wealthy and reverse the gains of the so-called “Millionaires Tax,” or the 4% surtax on incomes over $1 million that has generated billions of dollars for transportation and education projects.
State revenue officials have said Massachusetts could lose $5 billion in tax revenue each year if the ballot question is approved by voters. But ballot question supporters dispute that figure, saying it doesn’t take into account the three-year phase-in of the cut.
Top Beacon Hill Democrats have lined up in opposition to the ballot question, arguing it could lead to large budget cuts and reductions in state services.
