SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief

iI~.
i
I
CON(NIOI~`VEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Supreme Judicial Court

SUFFOLK,ss;
';
Na SJC-12064
STEPHANIE GRAY,ROBERT f~NTONUCCI, BILL WALCZAK,DIANNE KELLY,

B. 10HN DILL,K4LINIAH R?.HII~I, APRIL WEST; BEVERLY HOLNIES,
,TAC[NTHE AJ~Br~.Nt AND VANESSA CALDERON-ROS,~.DO,
i
r
-.
Plaintiff.Appellants,
v.
,_
MAURA HEALEY,IN I~ER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE AT.TOE~NEY GENERAL,

AND WILLIAivI F. GALVIN,IN HIS-OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH,
Def~nc~ant-appellees.
ON RESERVATION .a~1D REPORT FROt~1 THE

SUPREME ND[CIAL COURT FOR SUFFOLK COUNTY
BRIEF O]F THE APPELLEES

,'
Ii
~
~
i
NI~LJRA HEALEY
Attorney GeneYal
Juliana deHaan Rice;BBO #X64918
Michael Firestone, BBO # 689885
Assistant Atoj~neys General
Government Bureau
One Ashburton Place
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
(61'7) 963-2583
email: juliana.rice@state.ma.us
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ..................................1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................1
Nature of the Case .......
.....
..............1
Prior Proceedings ...............................2

Statement of Facts ..............................3
1.
Attorney General's Certification

Process ......................_........3
2.
Substance of the Petition .............4
SiJMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .....
.......
...
.........6
.ARGUMENT ............................................10
I.
THE PROPOSED LAW IS IN PROPER FORM FOR

CERTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 48. ...........10
A.
Properly Read as a Whole, the

Initiative Petition Proposes a
~~Law." ...............................11
1.
The Effect of a Petition Must

Be Assessed in Its Entirety. ....12
2.
Considered in Its Entirety,
the Measure Would

Unquestionably Amend Existing
Education Law. ..................14
3.
Even If Considered in
Isolation, Section 1 of the

Measure Would Have Legal
Force and Effect and
Therefore Proposes a Law. .......15
a.
Section l would restore

the pre-2010 version of
the curriculum
frameworks. ...........'.....18
b.
Section l~would have the

binding effect of
reversing the Board's
2010 vote. .................19
4.
Sections 2, 3, and 4 Are Not
"Subsidiary and Incidental to

the Main Purpose" of the
Petition. .......................21
B.
The Omission of One Word in the
Enacting Style Does Not Make the

Petition Improper Under Article
48 . ..................................24
1.
The Absence of the Word "By"

Is a Minor Error That Did Not
Warrant Declining
Certification. ..................24
2.
The Enacting Style Is a

Creature of Statute, Not
Article 48, and Does Not
Provide a Basis for the

Attorney General to Decline
Certification. ..................26
II.
THE PROPOSED LAW SATISFIES THE

"RELATEDNESS" REQUIREMENT OF ARTICLE
48. .......................................29
A.
The Relatedness Test Requires That
a Reasonable Voter Be Able to

Identify a "Meaningful Operational
Relationship" Among a Proposed
Law's Various Subjects. ..............29
B.
The Proposed Law Satisfies the

"Meaningful Operational
Relationship" Test. ...'...............33
1.
The Proposed Law Would Amend

Closely Interconnected
Provisions of State Education
Law . ............................34
ii
2.
Each of the Proposed Law's

Provisions Furthers the
Common Purpose of Adopting

More Specific Procedures
Governing the Development and
Implementation of Educational
Standards. ......................37
a.
A reasonable voter could

believe that requiring
new curriculum
development and review
committees would change
the process for
developing and
implementing curriculum
frameworks. ................39
b.

believe that repealing
the Common Core State
Standards would
facilitate the
implementation of the
new decisionmaking
processes mandated by
the petition's other
sections . ..................42
c.

believe that publishing
test items would
facilitate the
implementation of
educational standards
derived via the new
...............43
processes.
CONCLUSION ..........................................45
~~~
~~ lul
Amendment Article 48
(Referendum Provisions Omitted)
St. 1920, c. 388
House Bill No. 1585 (1920)
iii
Public Document No. 46, Twenty-Eighth

Annual Report of the Secretary of
the commonwealth of Massachusetts,
for the Year Ending November 30,
1919, page 22
f
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Abdow v. Attorney General,
468 Mass. 478 (2014) ..................30, 32, 33,
35, 38
Albano v. Attorney General,
437 Mass. l56 (2002) ...........................39
Associated Indus. of Massachusetts v.

Secretary of the Commonwealth,
413 Mass. 1 (1992) .........................18, 25
Bates v. Director of the Office of
campaign anu r~li~lc:al rliiailc:~,
436 Mass. 144 (2002) ...........................20
Buckley v. Secretary of the Commonwealth,
371 Mass. 195 (1976) ...........................28
Carney v. Attorney General,
447 Mass. 218 (2006) .......................passim
Citizens for a Competitive Massachusetts
v. Secretary of the Commonwealth,

413 Mass. 25 (1992) ............................28
Massachusetts Teachers Association v.

384 Mass. 209 (1981) ...............25, 30, 31, 39
Mazzone v. Attorney General,
432 Mass. 515 (2000) ..................12, 16, 22,
23, 39
Nigro v. Attorney General,

402 Mass. 438 (1988) ... .......................24
Opinion of the Justices to the
House of Representatives,
262 Mass. 604 (1928) ..................12, 14, 17,
21, 22
Paisner v. Attorney General,

390 Mass. 593 (1983) ..................11, 13, 17,
20, 21
Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. v.
403 Mass. 203 (1988) ...........................24
Statutes
G.L. c. 4, ~ 3 ..........................11, 24, 26, 27
G.L. c. 69 ................................4, 7, 15, 34
G.L. c. 69, 1 ..... ............................34, 36
G.L. c. 69, ~ 1D .............................5, 21, 35
G.L. c. 69, ~ lE .........................5, 21, 35, 40
G.L. c. 69, lI .........................5, 6, 21, 35,
36, 43
St. 1920, C. 388, 2 ...............................27
St. 1993, C. 71, 27 ........................:......34
St. 2012, c. 369 ....................................17
Constitutional Provisions
Mass. Const. Amend. Art. 48 .....................passim
Mass. Const. Amend. Art. 48,
The Initiative, Part II, 1 ...................11
Mass. Const. Amend. Art. 48,
The Initiative, Part II, 3 ...............10, 29
Mass. Const. Amend. Art. 48, {
General Provisions, Part VI ....................20
Mass Const. Amend. Art. 48,
General Provisions, Part VII .................:.26
vi
Rules and Regulations

Mass. R. App. P. 16~a)(4) ...........................21
Miscellaneous
2 Debates in the Massachusetts
Constitutional Convention
1917-1918 (1918) ...........................24, 28
April 13, 1920, statement of intent by its
sponsor, Representative Hull .........
........26
House Bill No. 1585 ........x.........................26

Public Document No. 46, Twenty-Eighth
Annual Report of the Secretary of the

Commonwealth for the Year Ending
November 30, 1919 ..............................26
vii
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Did the Attorney General pzoperly certify
I.
that an Article 48 initiative petition is in. proper

form for submission to the people where (a) the
petition, on the whole, proposes a "law" by
prescribing general binding rules of conduct relative
to public education; and (b) the omission of one word
from the statutory enacting style is a minor error
that does not affect the meaning of the petition?
II.
Did the Attorney General properly certify that
the petition satisfies Article 48's "relatedness"

requirement where a reasonable voter could view each
of the proposed law's subjects as having a meaningful
operational relationship to its overall purpose of
adopting more specific procedures. governing the
development and implementation of educational
standards by the Board and Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education?
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the Case
This is a challenge to the Attorney General's

certification under Amendment Article 48 of Initiative
Petition No. 15-12, entitled, "Initiative Petition for
a Law Relative to Ending Common Core Education
_I
Standards," which is currently on track to appear on

the November 2016 statewide election ballot.l
Prior. Proceedings
On January 22, 2016, the plaintiffs, 10
registered voters, filed a complaint in the county
court for declaratory judgment, certiorari, and
mandamus seeking a declaration that Initiative
Petition 15-12 does not comply with the requirements
of Article 48 and an order quashing the Attorney
General's certification and enjoining the Secretary of
the Commonwealth from placing the measure on the
November 2016 statewide election ballot.
Appendix (JA) at 1, 3-9.
Joint
Consistent with usual
practice in these matters, the parties filed a

statement of agreed facts (JA 57-110) and a joint
motion to reserve and .report (JA 111-113), which the
court (Gordy, J.) allowed on February 25.
JA 115.
T.he case was entered in this court on March 1.
Due to printing deadlines for the Information for

Voters Guide, the defendant Secretary of the
Commonwealth respectfully requests that this Court
issue an order resolving this case by July 11, with
opinions) to follow if necessary.
Statement of Facts
1.
ocess
Attorney General's Certification~Pr
y in August 2015,
On or before the first Wednesda
with the Attorney
at least 10 registered voters filed
tled, "Initiative
General an initiative petition enti
Ending Common Core
Petition for a Law Relative to
Education Standards."
JA 57-58.
In~ keeping with the
the Attorney General

order in which she received it,
JA 58.
numbered the petition 15-12.
On September 2,
d to the Secretary
2015, the Attorney General certifie
in proper form for
that Initiative Petition 15-12 was
was not, either
submission to the people; that it
tantially the same as
affirmative or negatively, subs
on to the people at
any measure qualified for submissi
nial state elections;
either of the two preceding bien
that are related or
and that it contained only matters
from the
mutually dependent and not excluded
t Article 48.
initiative process under Amendmen
Id.
the Attorney
As further required by Article 48,
the Secretary a fair
General prepared and provided to
and concise summary of the measure.
Id.2
e the Attorney
` The plaintiffs do not challeng
General's summary.
Thereafter, the Secretary prepared and

distributed blank signature forms to the petition's
proponents.
JA 58.
On or before the first Wednesday
in December 2015; the proponents gathered and filed

sufficient additional voter signatures to require the
Secretary to transmit the measure to the Legislature,
which he did.
JA 58-59.
As required by Article 48,
if the Legislature does not enact the proposed law by

the first Wednesday in May and if the proponents then
file sufficient additional voter signatures by the
first Wednesday in July, the Secretary will include
the proposed law in the Information for Voters Guide
being prepared this. summer and place the question on
the November ballot.
2.
JA 59.
Substance of the Petition
Petition 15-12 proposes amendments to G.L. c. 69,

which sets forth the powers and duties of the Board of
Elementary and Secondary Education ("Board"), the
Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education
("Commissioner"), and the Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education ("Department")
See JA 63-64.
Among these duties are the development of academic

standards and curriculum frameworks for public
education in the Commonwealth and adoption of a system
for evaluating the performance of public schools and

school districts.
See G.L. c. 69, ~ 1D, lE, lI.
The petition has six sections.
JA 63-64.
Section l would repeal a 2010 vote of the Board

relative to the adoption of state educational
standards and would restore the standards in place
prior to the vote.
JA 63.
Section 2 would amend G.L.
c. 69, 1D, to (a) require the Board to include in

the process for developing. academic standards
committees comprised of Massachusetts public-school
teachers and academics from Massachusetts public and
private universities; and (b) require the Commissioner
to copyright the curriculum frameworks but grant
permission for non-commercial educational uses.
Id.3
Section 3 would further amend G.L. c. 69, 1D, to

Create review committees, one each in the area of
mathematics, science and technology, and English.
Id.
The Governor would appoint these committees from
3 Both the initiative petition and the plaintiffs'

brief are less than precise in their use of the terms
"academic standards" and "curriculum frameworks." In
practice, the two elements occupy one document called
a "curriculum framework," which includes learning
standards for the subject matter at particular grade
levels. Current curriculum frameworks are available.
at http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/current.html
(accessed April 4, 2016).
'~,
Massachusetts public and private research universities

and the committees would need to warrant by a twothirds vote that any new curriculum frameworks were
equivalent to the standards of the most educationally
advanced nations as determined by the Trends in
Mathematics. and Sciences study before the Board could
adopt them.
Id.
Section 4 of the petition would amend G.L. c. 69,

lI, to require the annual release of all assessments
for every grade and every subject, including
questions, constructed responses, and essays..
JA 63.
Section 5 is a severability provision, and Section 6

is an effective-date provision.
JA 63-64.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
In evaluating whether an initiative petition

under Amendment Article 48 properly proposes a law,
the Attorney General must consider the purpose and
effect of the petition as a whole.
Here, the Attorney
General properly certified that the Initiative

Petition No. 15-12 is in proper .form because it
proposes a law by prescribing general rules of conduct

with binding effect.
(Pp. 10-13)
If adopted by the voters,~the proposed law would

reverse a vote of the state Board of Elementary and
Secondary Education concerning state educational

frameworks and would amend two sections of G.L. c. 69
governing the development and implementation of these
frameworks.
Because the purpose and effect of the
measure would be to change the legal requirements

governing educational standards, the measure would
enact a law~if adopted.
(Pp. 14-15)
Even if the Attorney General could evaluate each

section of an initiative petition separately in
piecemeal fashion, Section 1 would have the binding
legal effect of reversing a Board vote and reinstating
the educational frameworks that were in place before
the vote.
Therefore, it proposes a law.
(Pp. 15-21).
Sections 2 through 4 of the measure would have

the binding legal effect of 'amending two sections of
the General Laws relative to the development and
implementation of educational standards.
those sections also propose laws.
Therefore,
(Pp. 21-24)
The Attorney General properly certified the

measure although it omits one word ("by") from the.
statutorily prescribed enacting style for citizeninitiated laws.
This minor error does not affect the
meaning of the petition, nor would any voter be

confused about its provenance.
Nothing in Article 48
demands that the Attorney General refuse to certify a

petition on the basis of such an error, which would
not undermine the purpose of the enacting-style
requirement.
It is not clear that the petition's
proponents were even required to include the enacting

style in the petition.
Finally, allowing such an
immaterial error to invalidate the petition would

contravene the drafters' intent that Article 48 be a
"people's process" without excessive barriers to its
employment.
(Pp. 24-29)
The Attorney General properly concluded that the

initiative petition contains only subjects that are
related or mutually dependent, as required by Article
48.
All aspects of the proposed law are "meaningfully
operationally related" to its common purpose of

.adopting more specific procedures governing the
standards.
(Pp. 29-33)
The measure would amend existing provisions of

state education law that are themselves closely
interrelated: provisions governing state educational
standards and procedures for developing and
implementing .them that were part of the Massachusetts
Education Reform Act of 1993.
The Act's central
building blocks are educational standards and the

means of assessing student learning against those
standards.
Proposed amendments of those building
blocks are naturally. related to each other.
(Pp. 34-
37)
All parts of the petition would amend procedures

relative to the development and implementation of
educational standards.
The first section would
operate as a "reset button" to return the curriculum

frameworks~to the status quo ante.
The second and
third sections would amend the general laws to require

two tiers of committees to participate in the
development and review of curriculum frameworks and to
impose certain requirements for ownership, copyright,
and usage permissions for the curriculum frameworks.
The fourth section would amend procedures relative to
the release of assessments, which are used to measure
student learning against the frameworks.
(Pp. 37-44).
ARGUMENT
I.
THE PROPOSED LAW IS IN PROPER FORM FOR

CERTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 48.
Adopted in 1918, Amendment Article 48 of the
Massachusetts Constitution provides for the initiative

petition: a mechanism through which citizens may
propose a law or constitutional amendment for approval
by the voters on the statewide ballot.
As a first
step in the process, initiative petitions are

submitted to the Attorney General for her review and
certification that the petition meets the requirements
of Article 48.
Among other things, the Attorney
General must "certify that the measure and the title

thereof are in proper form for submission to the
people."
Amend. Art. 48, The Initiative, Part II,
Section 3.
If the Attorney General does not so
certify, the measure may not be filed with the

Secretary of Stake for preparation of the blanks for
gathering the necessary signatures to advance the
petition to the next stage.
Id.
-The plaintiffs raise two form-based challenges to

the Attorney General's certification of Initiative
Petition 15-12: they assert that the measure is not in
proper form because it does not propose a law or .a
__
I~
constitutional amendment and because the "enacting

style" required by G.L. c. 4, 3, was not reproduced
word-for-word at the top.
See Brief of Plaintiffs/
Appellants ("Pltf. Br.") at 11-21, 33-35.
Both
contentions should fail.

A.
Properly Read as a Whole, the Initiative

Petition Proposes a "Law."
An initiative petition that does not propose

either a law or a constitutional amendment is not in
proper form for certification by the Attorney General.
n 1
See Amend. Art. 48, The Initiative, Part II, Sectio
("An initiative petition shall set forth the full text

of the constitutional. amendment or law
which is
proposed by the petition."); Paisner v. Attorney

General, 390 Mass. 593, 598-599 (1983) (to be in
proper form for submission to the. voters, initiative
under Article 48 must propose either a constitutional
amendment or a law).4
For purposes of Article 48, this
Court has described a law "as including a measure with

binding effect, or as importing à general rule of
conduct with appropriate means for its enforcement by
some authority possessing sovereign power over the
4 Similar to the measure at issue in Paisner,
Initiative Petition 15-12 suggests no constitutional
amendment. Therefore, the only relevant inquiry is
whether it proposes a law.
11
,.
_ _ _
subject; it implies command and not entreaty."'

Mazzone v. Attorney General, 432 Mass. 515, 530 (2000)
(citing Opinion of the Justices to the House of
.Representatives, 262. Mass. 604, 605 (1928)).
The Effect of a Petition Must Be
Assessed in Its Entirety.
1.
In deciding to certify Initiative Petition 15-12,
the Attorney General properly Considered the petition

in its entirety.
An initiative petition that "does,
on the whole, state a `general rule of conduct with

appropriate means for its enforcement'
propose a law for purposes of art. 48."
does
Mazzone, 432
Mass. ~t 530-531, (emphasis added, citation omitted).

Nearly all of the plaintiffs' argument on this
point addresses Section 1 of the petition in complete
isolation.
See, e.g., Pltf. Br. at 12 ("Section 1 of
the Petition is neither a law nor a constitutional

amendment").
But the plaintiffs cite no authority --
-and none exists -- to support the proposition that

every section of an initiative petition must itself
propose a law.
absurd.
Indeed, such a requirement would be
Items such as findings, declarations of
purpose, "whereas" clauses, severability clauses, and

effective date clauses are common features in all
statutes, even though they do not themselves,
12
considered in artificial isolation, constitute

freestanding "laws."
Such statutory features are an
accepted part of the Legislature's law-making power,

and the people's power under Article 48 is generally
considered coextensive with the Legislature's.
Paisner, 390 Mass. at 601.
Indeed, the petition at
issue here contains both a severability clause

(Section 5} and an effective date clause (Section 6),
but plaintiffs do not suggest that their inclusion
renders the petition non-certifiable, as they do with
respect to Section 1.
It is the overall substance of a petition, not
the vagaries of its organizational division, that
dictates whether it "proposes a law."5
Because the
substance of this petition would amend existing

educational law, it was in proper form for
certification by the Attorney General.
For example, the petition at issue could easily have

been drafted as one long section rather than as six
separate ones, thus combining the provisions that
plaintiffs argue do not propose a law (Section 1) and
that plainly do not propose laws when considered in
isolation (Sections 5 and 6) with provisions that the
plaintiffs acknowledge do propose laws (Sections 2, 3,
and 4). Under plaintiffs' section- specific focus,
this single-section petition would clearly propose a
law. It is inconceivable that the certification of
petitions under Article 48 should turn on how they may
be divided into sections.
13
Considered in Its Entirety, the Measure

Would Unquestionably Amend Existing
Education Law.
2.
Considered as a whole, this petition proposes a

law because it would amend existing legal requirements
governing educational curriculum frameworks and
Section 1 of the petition is a "reset
assessments.
button" to return those standards to the point before

the most recent adoption of new standards with which
the petitioners disagree.
Sections 2 and 3 would
Change the process for adopting new standards in the

future by requiring two tiers of committees, certain
warrants before the Board could adopt new frameworks,
copy-right protection for the frameworks, and granting
of certain permissions to use them.
Section 4 would
amend procedures governing public access to

assessments, which test student learning of the
frameworks.
Sections 5 and 6 instruct how to
implement the changes made by Sections 1 through 4.

Considering the legal effect of all these
sections together, the Attorney General correctly
concluded that the proposed measure would impose
"general rules of conduct" governing the Board, the
Commissioner, and the Department in the discharge of
their duties.
See Opinion of the Justices, 262 Mass.
i~
at 605 (initiative petition proposes a law by

prescribing general rule of conduct).
Even the
plaintiffs acknowledge that the petition proposes

binding changes to th'e substantive law governing the
work of the Board, the Commissioner, and the
Department.
See Pltf. Br. at 12-13 (stating that law
enacted by initiative petition could amend G.L. c. 69

to restrict the Board's discretion over curriculum
frameworks) and 14 (acknowledging that Sections 2-4 of
the initiative petition "would amend the process by
which the Board may adopt future frameworks").
Properly concluding that the purpose of the petition,
considered in its entirety, is to effectuate binding
changes in existing law, the Attorney General
correctly certified it.
3.
Even If Considered in Isolation,

Section 1 of the Measure Would Have
Legal Force and Effect and Therefore
Proposes a Law.
Furthermore, even if Section 1 could be assessed

in isolation from the other five sections of
Initiative Petition 15-12 -- which it may not be, as
discussed above -- it would still propose a law
requiring certification by the Attorney General
because it effectuates a change in the existing legal
requirements governing educational standards.
15
Plaintiffs argue that the petition. does not propose a

law because of two purported flaws in its Section 1:
(a) Section 1 would lack binding effect if adopted;
and (b) Section 1 purports to rescind a Board vote
that itself was of no legal consequence.
Br. at 11-21.
See Pltf.
This argument is without merit.
Section 1 provides:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or
special law to the contrary, the vote taken by
the [Board] on July 21, 2010, to adopt the .Common
Core State Standards for Mathematics and English
Language Arts is hereby rescinded. The
curriculum frameworks in Mathematics and English
Language Arts that were in effect prior to that
date are hereby restored.
JA 63.
Without benefit of citation to authority, the
plaintiffs proclaim this section fatally flawed

because "a declaration that purports to rescind .a vote
by the Board is not a `law' for purposes of Article
48."
Pltf. Br. at 12.
This Court has never so held.
Rather, this Court has examined whether proposed

measures would implement real and binding change in
existing law.
See Mazzone, 432 Mass. at 518, 530-531
(affirming Attorney General's certification of

initiative petition that would have extended
eligibility for drug treatment to persons "at risk of
becoming drug dependent" because the measure proposed
a "general rule of conduct with appropriate means for
at 600
r, 390 Mass .
ne
is
Pa
.
cf
forcement");
en
y
ation to certif
in
cl
de
s
l'
ra
torney Gene
(affirming At
ive-branch
ctate legislat
di
d
ul
wo
at
measure th
.
wer
"continuing po
'
es
ch
an
br
e
ere th
procedures wh
e
would render th
ns
io
is
ov
pr
to ignore its
Justices, 262
inion of the
Op
);
y"
it
ll
proposal a nu
l's
Attorney Genera
ng
si
er
ev
(r
5
Mass. at 60
vite[d] a
at "merely in
th
e
ur
as
me
of
certification
bject
voters on a su
by
n
io
in
op
declaration of
of the
h the people
ic
wh
er
ov
]
[Prohibition
n power").
the sovereig
of
rt
pa
no
ssess
Commonwealth po
are few,
in this area
ns
io
in
op
s
t'
Cour
Although the
e actual
nt focus on th
te
is
ns
co
a
e
at
they demonstr
isting legal
es on the ex
ur
as
me
ed
os
op
effect of pr
change that
ction 1 would
Se
e
us
ca
Be
landscape.
w.6
proposes a la
landscape, it
1 of the
fault Section
fs
if
nt
ai
pl
e
neral Laws,
6 Although th
ending the Ge
am
t
no
r
fo
tition
ons are not
initiative pe
iative petiti
it
in
,
14
at
neral Laws.
See Plt~. Br.
ts to the Ge
en
dm
en
am
g
in
opos
t for the
limited to pr
c. 369 (An Ac
,
12
20
.
St
a, which was
See, eg,
e of Marijuan
Us
l
ca
di
Me
tition
initiative pe
Humanitarian
48
e
cl
ti
Ar
e
h th
ral Law).
end any Gene
adopted throug
am
or
t
ac
en
did not
process, but
17
Section 1 would restore the pre2010 version of the curriculum

frameworks.
a.
The plaintiffs challenge Section 1's reference to

the Board's July 2010 vote conditionally adopting the
Common Core State Standards instead of the December
2010 vote finally adopting them.
II (pp. 17-21).
Pltf. Br. Argument
Plaintiffs assert that, because the
Board's adoption of new frameworks, incorporating the

Common Core State Standards was not complete until the
December vote, petitioners' failure to reference that
subsequent vote renders Section 1 legally null.
Even if Section 1's first sentence could perhaps
have been drafted more precisely, its second sentence
removes any doubt about its intended effect by
providing that the curriculum frameworks in effect
prior to the July 2010 vote "are hereby restored."
63.
JA
This clear command would be legally operative and
the plaintiffs do not argue otherwise.
An initiative
petition proposing a measure sufficiently

understandable to permit compliance is not "too
indefinite to constitute a law."
Associated Indus. of
Massachusetts v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 413

Mass. 1, 10 (1992).
Section 1, despite arguably
imperfect drafting, does propose such a measure.
18
b.
Section 1 would have the binding

effect of reversing the Board's
2010 vote.
Section 1 would rescind a Board vote relative to

the Commonwealth's educational standards.
JA 63.
Plaintiffs -seem to argue that such a rescission would

not constitute a law because it would not restrict the
Board's discretion post-rescission.
Argument I (pp. 11-17)
Pltf.' Br.
This assertion is_inCOrrect
because the measure would have binding effect on the

Board. 7
Section Z would reverse a 2010 Board vote
concerning the curriculum frameworks.
Plaintiffs do
not explain why that reversal would lack binding legal

effect. .Even if the Board could retake the.same vote
(i.e., to re-adopt the just-rescinded curriculum
frameworks) as soon as the proposed measure was
adopted (which the rest of the petition would
prohibit), the rescission would not be any less
effective.
The Legislature may repeal or amend any
Plaintiffs argue that, to be in proper form, the

petition would need to propose changes to the
underlying substantive law to prevent the Board from
simply retaking the same vote. Pltf. Br. at 12-13.
That argument is not correct for the reasons discussed
herein but, even if it were, plaintiffs ignore that
Sections 2 and 3 of the petition would do exactly
that.
ion.
law adopted via an Article 48 initiative petit
ign and
See Bates v. Director of the Office of Campa
); Amend.
Political Finance, 436 Mass. 144, 155 (2002
Art. 48, General Provisions, Part VI.
This fact does
as it
not make that law any less binding for so long
for an
is in effect, or make it an improper subject
initiative petition.
Whether a proposed measure has a
whether
binding effect should not be confused with
that effect is necessarily permanent.
gy
Plaintiffs urge on this Court an inapt analo
in Paisner.
between Section 1 and the measure at issue
Pltf. Br. at 16.
The Paisner measure proposed only
e chambers,
amendments to procedures of the legislativ
ions,
such as committee selection, leadership posit
and recording
hearings, daily calendars, roll calls,
votes.
Paisner, 390 Mass. at 596.
But the
of
Constitution expressly commits such matters
ers.
internal governance to the legislative chamb
at 599.
Id.
Therefore, the Court concluded that the
onal
legislative chambers would have the constituti
rendering
authority to ignore the proposed law, thus
it a nullity.
390 Mass. at 600.
more free
In contrast, the Board would not be any
it would be
to ignore Section 1 of this petition than
20
to ignore the requirements imposed on it by G.L.

the
c. 69, ~ 1D, lE, and lI with respect to
curriculum frameworks and assessments..
Even if the
n
Board could later re-vote its adoption of the Commo
tuated
Core State Standards, Section 1 would have effec
Board
a reversal of the 2010 vote unless and until the
addressed it in some fashion.
Unlike the Paisner
t and,
measure, Section 1 would have a binding effec
therefore, proposes a law.
4.
_
Sections 2, 3, and 4 Are Not

"Subsidiary and Incidental to the Main
Purpose" of the Petition.
In a one-sentence footnote, the plaintiffs cite

262
this Court's ruling in Opinion of the Justices,
ons 2
Mass. at 606, for the proposition that -"Secti
law`
through 4 of the Petition `cannot convert into a
gh 4
Section l," presumably because Sections 2 throu
se" of
are "subsidiary and incidental to the main purpo
the petition.
See Pltf. Br. at 14 n.5.
Even assuming
late
that this footnote rises to the level of appel
,' its
argument, see Mass. R.. App. P. 16 (~a) (4)
contention should be rejected.

Even if Section 1 would not propose a law when
viewed in isolation, it does not need to be
r
"converted" into one for the petition to be in prope
21
form.
As she must, the Attorney General viewed the

Mazzone,
intended effect of the petition as a whole.

432 Mass. at 530-531.
The purpose of the proposed
law, advanced by all of its substantive sections (l,

2, 3, and 4), is to amend educational standards in the
Commonwealth.
As such, the petition is wholly unlike
the proposed law considered by the Justices in 1928.

That petition would have employed the ballot as a
statewide opinion poll by asking voters their views on
Prohibition, a matter of federal constitutional law
that Massachusetts voters had no legal authority to
change.
604.
See Opinion of the Justices, 262 Mass. at
The Justices concluded that Article 48 does not
permit citizens to use the ballot that way:
they may
use it only to propose laws or constitutional

amendments that would have binding effect.
Id. at
605-606.
The 1928 Justices rejected the argument that
Section 2 of the proposed law before them, which would
have required the Secretary to tabulate and report the
votes about Prohibition, was too "subsidiary and
incidental to the main purpose of the proposed law" to
cast the entire petition in proper form.
Id. at 606.
The Court observed that, "[s]uperficial appearances
22
,;
cannot clothe with the attributes of law something in

substance vain and inoperative."
Id.
The purpose of
the 1927 petition was to conduct a "vain and

inoperative" opinion poll.
Requiring the polling
results to be gathered and published could not

transform the non-binding poll into a binding law.
In contrast, no part of Initiative Petition 15-12
is "vain and inoperative."
Even if Section 1 standing
alone could be viewed that way (and it cannot),

Sections 2, 3, and 4 -- acknowledged by the plaintiffs
to have real legal effect -- are far from "superficial
appearances."
They indisputably propose amendments to
the legal landscape that cannot fairly be

characterized as "subsidiary and incidental" to the
petit.ion's purpose.
Because that purpose is to amend
the legal requirements governing educational

curriculum frameworks and assessments, the petition
proposes a law and was properly certified by the
Attorney General.
~
The petitioners' legislative drafting abilities

are-not reviewable under Article 48, Mazzone, 432
Mass. at 531, and the requirements of Article 48
should not be applied rigidly to impede the ability of
23
the people to "speak freely [with] as little restraint

as possible."
Nigro v. Attorney General, 402 Mass.
438, .447 (1988) (citation omitted).
Rather, Article
48 is construed to support the people's prerogative to

initiate, and adopt laws.
Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. v.
Secretary of the Commonwealth, 403 Mass. 203, 211

(1988) (citation omitted).
And the Attorney General
should not act as a censor in certifying petitions as

to proper form, but should allow the people to speak
and act freely by way of the initiative process.
Debates in the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention

1917-1918, 728 (1918).
Fairly read with these
y
standards in mind, the petition,. being both legall
a
operative and understandable in its effect, proposes
law.
B.
The Omission of One Word in the Enacting

Style Does Not Make the Petition Improper
Under Article 48.
1.
The Absence of the Word "By" Is a Minor

Error That Did Not Warrant Declining
Certification.
The Legislature has specified that:

The enacting style of all measures submitted
to the people in pursuance of an initiative
petition for a law shall be: `Be it enacted
by the People, and b~ their authority.'
G.L. c. 4, ~ 3 (emphasis added).
Initiative
Petition 15-12 has a drafting error: the word

24
e, which
enacting styl
he
.t
om
fr
d
"by" is omitte
d [J their
the people an
by
d
te
ac
en
reads, "Be it
of the second
The omission
.
63
JA
"
authority.
l error
is a trzvia
e
yl
st
ng
ti
enac
"by" from the
e measure
meaning of th
e
th
es
us
nf
Co
that neither
ificatzo
nor bars cer~
n.
perfect.
ied even if im
if
rt
ce
be
n
A measure ca
etary of the
Assn v. Secr
rs
he
ac
Te
s
sett
See Massachu
(affirming
9, 237 (1981)
20
.
ss
Ma
4
38
Commonwealth,
statutory
an incorrect
th
wi
on
ti
n of peti
certificatio
icantly by
misled signif
s
wa
e
on
o
n]
e "[
reference wher
e could be
p"}. No on
hi
ns
ma
ts
af
dr
the
the error in
y" in the
the second "b
o~
on
si
is
om
misled by the
clear that
: it remains
on
ti
ti
pe
is
e of th
enacting styl
is Caurt has
petition. Th
d
te
ia
it
in
zenthis is a citi
graphical
perhaps a typo
r,
ro
er
l
al
sm
held that "a
not bar
osed law did
op
pr
a
of
nguage
one," in the la
"[i]n the
r was apparent
ro
er
e
th
e
wher
certification,
ose of the
obvious purp
e
th
of
ew
vi
context and in
ss.
Mass., 418 Ma
of
s.
du
In
ed
" Associat
proposed law.
drafting
only a minor
s
ha
on
ti
ti
, the pe
at 293. Here
provenance,
s meaning or
it
e
us
nf
co
t
es no
error that do
ication,
ld its certif
ho
up
ld
ou
sh
t
and this Cour
25
2.
The Enacting Style Is a Creature of

Statute, Not Article 48, and Does Not
Provide a Basis for the Attorney
General to Decline Certification:
For at leash four reasons, the fact that the

enacting style is prescribed by statute strengthens
the Attorney General's decision to Certify the
petition notwithstanding this minor error.
First,
Article 48 envisioned that subsequent legislation

might be adopted to facilitate its implementation, see
Amend. Art. 48, General Provisions, Part VII, but did
not specify that the failure of a petition to comply
with any such later-enacted requirements should result
in its exclusion from the initiative process.. Thus,
there is no basis in Article 48 to reverse the
Attorney General's certification of the petition.
Second, the purpose of G.L. c. 4, 3, would not
be undermined by the Attorney General's certification
of the petition.
That section was added to the
General Laws in 1920 at the suggestion of the

Secretary of the Commonwealth, who noted that Article
48 had failed to provide an enacting style for laws
adopted in accordance with its provisions.
See House
Bill No. 1585; April 13, 1920, statement of intent by

bill's sponsor, Representative Hull; and Public
Document No. 46, Twenty-Eighth Annual Report of the
26
for the Year Ending

Secretary of the Commonwealth
included in Addendum).
November 30, 1919, at 22 (all
s amendment is not
While the exact reason for thi
Secretary thought it
evident, it makes sense that the
tiated laws in the
would be useful to identify ini
laws adopted by the
published Acts and Resolves as
islature.
People rather than by the Leg
Even if
adopted'by the voters and

Initiative Petition 15-12 is
future readers will fully
enacted in its current form,
n-initiated law.
understand that it was a citize
ar that the enacting
Third, it is not entirely cle
measure at the.time it
style must be included in the
is submitted to the voters.
The full text of the act
General Laws requires the

that added c. 4, 3, to the
to insert the enacting
Secretary of the Commonwealth
adopted.
style after the law has been
See St. 1920,
endum) (directing the

c. 388, 2 (included in Add
for which initiative
Secretary "in engrossing bills
insert the specified
petitions are completed," to
added).
enacting language) (emphasis
If petitioners
the beginning of the

must add the enacting style at
Secretary to add it at
process, the directive to the
the end would be superfluous.
27
Finally, excluding an Article 48 petition for

failure to comply with a later-enacted statute would
open the way for adoption of other statutes imposing
essly
excessively technical form requirements to needl
obstruct the initiative process.
The Legislature's
authority to~adopt provisions to "facilitate" the

operation of Article 48 could be used to impose
ng
requirements that, while playing some facilitati
ng to
role, could also set traps for the unwary leadi
the invalidation of petitions.
This result would
permit
contravene the drafters' intent that Article 48
the people to speak and act freely though the
initiative process.
See 2 Debates at 728 ("[L]et
there be as few barriers as may be at the gates
in
through which [the people] must originally pass"
titive
initiating laws); see also Citizens for a Compe
413
Massachusetts v. Secretary of the Commonwealth,
se a result that
Mass. 25, 31 (1992) ("We cannot endor
the
would permit the Legislature ... to frustrate
the
right of the people to place a proposed law on
nwealth,
ballot."); Buckley v. Secretary of the Commo
"a
371 Mass. 195, 199 (1976) (Article 48 created
people's process").
For all these reasons, the
ion
Attorney General's certification of the petit
of a tiny technical
should not be quashed on the basis
flaw in its enacting style.
II.
ATEDNESS"
THE PROPOSED LAW SATISFIES THE "REL
REQUIREMENT OF ARTICLE 48.
ntiffs'
This Court should also reject the plai
improperly
argument that the Attorney General
s only subjects
certified that the petition "contain
.
ally
which are related or which. are mutu
dependent."
ve,
JA 67; Amend. Art. 48, The Initiati
y Pltf. Br, at 21-32.

Part II, Section 3; see generall
tedness requirement
The petition satisfies this rela
find that all of the
because a reasonable voter could
impose new procedural
proposed law's provisions would
and implementation of
requirements on the development
educational standards.
A.
t a
The Relatedness Test Requires Tha
tify a
Reasonable Voter Be Able to Iden
ship" Among
"Meaningful Operational Relation
.
a Proposed Law's Various Subjects
s substantive
Article 48 requires a proposed law'
ational relationship"
parts to bear a "meaningful oper
a reasonable voter to
to one another, so as to "permit
tion as a unified
affirm or reject the entire peti
statement of public policy."
Carney v. Attorney
(2006) ("Carney I").

General, 447 Mass. 218, 220, 231
to bright-line
"This question is not susceptible
29
analysis," id. at 226,8 and a petition "need.not~

evidence a `strict internal cons~stenCy,"' so long as
Lls] not so broad as to
"its purported common purpose
render the relatedness limitation `meaningless."'
Id.
This Court has repeatedly
at 225 (citations omitted).
cautioned against reading the relatedness requirement

so strictly that only petitions on "a single subject"
would make it to the ballot.
Abdow v. Attorne
General, 468 Mass. 478, 499 (2014); see also Carney I,

447 Mass. at 227-228 (observing that 1917-118
constitutional convention declined to adopt proffered
amendment to provide that "[n]o proposed law shall
contain more than one subject"); MTA, 384 Mass.. at 219
n.9 (discussing same).
The relatedness, requirement is designed to bar
petitions from unfairly improving the chances of
enacting "controversial" provisions .by joining them
with tangentially related but "alluring" provisions in
a way that would cause confusion for the average
voter.
Id. at 227 & n.20, 228-29; but see Abdow, 468
8 The Court's "no bright line" comment concerned an

alternative formulation of the relatedness test -whether "the similarities of an initiative's
provisions dominate what each segment provides
separately so that the petition is~sufficiently
coherent to be voted on `yes' or `no' by the voters,"
id. at 226 -- but is equally apposite here.
30
Mass. at 503 (a petition may meet the relatedness test

even if all of its supporters might not share the same
motivation).
Before Carney I, the relatedness requirement had
been construed to require that the "general subject of
[the] initiative petition [not be] so broad as to
render the `related subjects' limitation meaningless"
and that "one can identify a common purpose to which
each subject
germane."
Can reasonably be said to be
MTA, 3'84 Mass. at 219-20.
Carney'I arose
after voters in 2000 narrowly defeated an initiative

petition that would have banned commercial greyhound
racing'.
447 Mass. at 222.
In response, the
petitioners returned with a slightly revised petition

for the 2006 ballot that, in addition to banning
commercial greyhound racing, would have made it a
crime to harm a military; police, or service dog while
committing a felony or to breed dogs for fighting.
Carney I, 447 Mass. at 223 n.16.
Concerned that the two criminal provisions might
unfairly increase the petition's appeal to voters, the
Court concluded that they bore "no meaningful
operational relationship to laws that would abolish
31
-parimutuel dog racing, an established, highly

regulated enterprise."
Id. at 220.
It stated:
It is not enough that the provisions in an

initiative petition all `relate' to some
same broad topic at some conceivable level
of abstraction. To clear the relatedness
hurdle, the initiative petition must express
an operational relatedness among its
substantive parts that would permit a
reasonable voter to affirm or reject the
entire petition as a unified statement of
public policy.
500-501.
Id. at 230-231; see also Abdow, 468 Mass. at
Under Carney I, the appropriate focus is not on

whether the proponents view the petition's various
rather
provisions as somehow related, id. at 225, but
whether "a reasonable voter" could find a sufficient
"meaningful operational relationship" among those
voted on
provisions to allow the entire petition to be
~
as a "unified statement of public. policy."

230-31.
Id, at
Critically, Carney I does not require that
all reasonable voters view a petition's subjects as

."
having such a relationship, just "a reasonable voter
er
Certainly, reasonable minds can differ as to wheth
various subjects are "meaningfully operationally
c
related" or constitute a "unified statement of publi
policy."
To defer to the interpretation of some
idate it
voters hostile to a petition's merits to inval
tute the
on relatedness grounds would effectively insti
32
"single-subject" requirement rejected by Article 48's

drafters.
See Abdow, 468 Mass. at 499.
Accordingly, a petition meets the relatedness

test so long as some reasonable voters (and the
Attorney General and this Court) are able to identify
a meaningful operational relationship among its
provisions.
Applying that standard here, the Court
should have no difficulty affirming the Attorney

General's certification of Initiative Petition 15-12.
B.
The Proposed Law Satisfies the "Meaningful

Operational Relationship" Test.
The law proposed here easily satisfies the.

requirement that a reasonable voter be able to
identify a "meaningful operational relationship" among
its various subjects, thus allowing that voter to
"affirm or reject the entire petition as a unified
230-231.
Carney I, 447 Mass. at
As shown below, a reasonable voter could
view each of the petition's subjects as meaningfully

and operationally related-to the overall purpose of
imposing new procedural requirements on the
standards.
33
1.
The Proposed Law Would Amend Closely

Interconnected Provisions of State
Education Law.
~
Massachusetts education reform is grounded in the

nexus between academic standards and the mechanisms
for assessing progress toward achieving those same
standards.
This fundamental relationship is reflected
in the primary description of the purpose of education

reform, which is to ensure, inter alias
a deliberate process for establishing and
achieving specific educational performance
goals for every child; and
~
an effective mechanism for monitoring progress

toward those goals and for holding educators
accountable for their achievement.
G.L. c. 69, 1, added by the Massachusetts Education

Reform Act, St. 1993, c. 71, ~ 27.
Through this
expression of legislative intent and the structure of

Chapter 69, the development of academic standards and
the means of assessing student achievement against
those standards are closely connected.
Indeed, the
Education Reform Act specifically requires that annual

assessment instruments be
designed to assess the extent to which schools
and districts succeed in improving or fail to
improve student performance, as defined by
student acquisition of .the skills, competencies
and knowledge called for by the academic
standards and embodied in the curriculum
frameworks[.]
34
G.L. c. 69, ~ 1I.
This linkage of the educational
standards to the assessment enables assessment results

to guide improvement in curriculum and instruction.
See id.
("The [assessment] system shall be designed
both to measure outcomes and results regarding student

performance, and to improve the effectiveness of
curriculum and instruction.")
Thus, ~ 1D, lE, and lI
themselves are operationally related.
This
operational relatedness reflects on the internal

relatedness of a petition that proposes to amend these
sections.
See Abdow, 468 Mass. at 501 (operational
relatedness of statutory sections that petition would
amend buttresses conclusion that petition contains

only subjects that are related or mutually dependent).9
The plaintiffs fail to acknowledge this
fundamental relationship between curriculum standards
and diagnostic testing, allowing only that both "may
fall under the general field of public education."
Pltf. Br. at 25.
They strain to avoid acknowledging
the operational relationships between educational
9 That the petition would amend related sections in a

single chapter of the General Laws differentiates it
from the Carney I petition, which troubled the Court
with its unprecedented "mixture of criminal law and
administrative overhaul."
Abdow, 468 Mass. at 503.
447 Mass. at 231; see
standards and assessments by pointing to the

of the
Department's internal structure as indicative
legal effect of the petition, rather than as a
standard matter of administrative efficiency.
See
nt's "org
Pltf. Br. at 28-29 & n.14 (invoking Departme
Chart in support of relatedness challenge, and

nt are
arguing that framework development and assessme
h
only as interrelated as each is to "the school lunc
program").
In fact, the twin educational facets of
curriculum and assessment are inextricably coupled:
h
assessments exist to measure the extent to whic
hing the
students are learning and schools are teac
in the
material, concepts, and strategies set forth
academic standards.
G.L. c. 69, ~ lI.
Such
e
measurements yield data that is used to driv
improvements in teaching and learning.
Id.
The
"meaningful operational relationship" between the

content set forth in the academic standards and
the
assessing student learning .of that content is
y set
pedagogic foundation of, and indeed is expressl
forth in, the Education Reform Act.
lI.
G.L. c. 69, ~~ 1,
Therefore, the Attorney General correctly
concluded that the petition meets Article 48's

relatedness requirement.
2.
Each of the Proposed Law's Provisions

Furthers the Common Purpose of Adopting
More Specific Procedures Governing the
Development and Implementation of
Educational Standards.
A reasonable voter could view each of the

petition's subjects as meaningfully and operationally
related to the overall purpose of amending the process
of developing and implementing educational standards.
This common purpose would "permit a reasonable voter
to affirm or reject the entire petition as a unified
230-231.
While the plaintiffs' "cursory review" may
not have discerned this common purpose, Pltf. Br. at

24-25, a reasonable voter could easily do so.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' assertion,.Sections 1
through 3 do not just "arguably relate to the adoption
and creation of educational standards and curriculum
frameworks."
Pltf. Br. at 25.
Along with Section 4,
these provisions establish new processes for the Board

to follow in the future development and implementation
of educational standards.
Section 1 does not merely
"reject a specific curriculum framework, the Common

Core," Pltf. Br. at 25; it works in concert with the
37
__
quo ante: the

other sections to restore the status
s curriculum
Mathematics and English Language Art
adoption of the
frameworks in place prior to the
JA 63.
Common Core State Standards.
Section 2
achusetts educators
establishes new committees of Mass
future curriculum
to participate in the development of
review committees,
frameworks, and Section 3 forms new
ant that proposed
appointed by the Governor, to warr
ain international
new curriculum frameworks meet cert
the Board.
standards before consideration by
Id.
rm the teachers and

Section 4, "in order to better info
ic assessments,"
administrators about the diagnost
of test items,
requires the annual public release
d to assess school
including test questions, develope
nal standards set
progress in achieving the educatio
tioned committees.
forth by the Board and the aforemen
es the Board
Each provision would amend procedur
and the Department must follow
in
Id.
developing and.
dards.
implementing state educational stan
ational
Adopting new procedures governing educ
purpose as those of
standards is as much of a common
Court as meeting the
other petitions affirmed by this
icle 48.
relatedness requirement of Art
See, e.g.,
n's overall
Abdow, 468 Mass. at 502-03 (petitio
scope of
purpose, to "redefine (and limit) the
alth," met
permissible gambling in the Commonwe
Attorney General,
relatedness requir.ement); Albano v.
ire petition
437 Mass. 156, 161 (2002) (where "ent
restricting the
relates to the common purpose of
to opposite-sex
benefits and incidents of marriage
requirement of
couples," it. met the relatedness
at 529 ("expanding the
Article 48); Mazzone, 432 Mass:
tment programs
scope of the Commonwealth's drug trea
and
a
fairly funding those programs" was
384 Mass. at 220

sufficient "common purpose"); MTA,
related to the
(all portions of Proposition 2 1/2
"limitation of taxes").
This Court should similarly
a "unified
conclude that this petition presents
meets the relatedness
statement of public policy" that
requirement of Article 48.
See Carney I, 447 Mass. at
231.
a.
A reasonable voter could believe

that requiring new curriculum
development and review committees
would change the process for
developing and implementing
curriculum frameworks.
that requiring
to participate in the
the establishment of committees
"made up
development of curriculum frameworks
and academics
exclusively of public school teachers
39
es and universities
from private and public colleg
sachusetts," JA 63,
established and operated in Mas
ements on the Board
would impose additional requir
state educational
relative to the adoption of
standards.
in existing
Indeed, two notable changes
cess would be required

law are that the Board's pro
orporate such committees
(not simply permitted) to inc
have to be populated
and that the committees would
Massachusetts,lo
working in
ics
dem
aca
and
rs
che
tea
h
wit
ee on whether mandating
Reasonable voters may disagr
tees or restricting their
curriculum development commit
educators are sensible
membership to Massachusetts
ers could also understand
policy choices, but such vot
t a policy preference for
that these proposals reflec
developed,ll
uld be
how curriculum frameworks sho
ation of curriculum
The current law governing cre
"[t]he process for drawing
frameworks specifies that,.
s shall be open and
up and revising the framework
e but need not be limited
consultative, .and may includ
s, faculty of schools of
to classroom teachers, parent
e and university figures
education, and leading colleg
es and pedagogy."
in both subject matter disciplin
G.L. c. 69, ~ lE.
to
not to disturb the

Voters could instead decide
in the educational
discretion currently vested
lly appointed Board
expertise of the gubernatoria
ment staff in developing
overseeing professional Depart
student learning, and
academic standards, assessing
tions with transparency
balancing financial considera
of assessment items to
in deciding what percentage
(footnote continued)
11
40
Simi1 arly, reasonable voters Could believe that

forming new review committees to assess curriculum
frameworks in math, science and technology, and
English, comprised of members appointed by the
Governor from Massachusetts research universities,
would change the process for developing new
frameworks .
Finally, reasonable voters could also
believe that the requirements that each review

committee
~~Warrant by a two-thirds vote that the
frameworks are equivalent to the standards of the most

educationally advanced nations as determined by the
Trends in
Mathematics and Sciences Study," and that
"[n]o framework shall be approved by the board without

such a warrant" would effectuate new procedures for
the treat ion of future curriculum frameworks.
together,
Taken
all of these changes could be said to
advance the petition's common purpose by amending the

law relat 1ve to public education standards in the
Commonwea lth.
See http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/
release each year.
(releasir~g MCAS test items from past five years,
accessed
on April 4, 2016).
41
Similarly, reasonable voters could believe that

forming new review committees to assess curriculum
frameworks in math, science and technology, and
English, comprised of members appointed by the
Governor from Massachusetts research universities,
would change the process for developing new
frameworks.
Finally, reasonable voters could also
believe that the requirements that each review

committee "warrant by a two-thirds vote that the
frameworks are equivalent to the standards of the most
educationally advanced nations as determined by the
Trends in Mathematics' and Sciences Study," and that
"[n]o framework shall be approved by the board without
such a warrant" would effectuate new procedures for
the creation of future curriculum frameworks.
Taken
together, all of these changes could be said to

advance the petition's common purpose by amending the
law relative to public education standards in the
Commonwealth.
release each year. See http://www.doe.mass.edu/mCas/
(releasing MCAS test items from past five years,
accessed on April 4, 2016).
41
b.

that repealing the Common Core
State Standards would facilitate
the implementation of the new
decisionmaking processes mandated
by the petition's other sections.
A reasonable voter could believe that reversing

the Board's 2010 vote to adopt the Common Core State
Standards and restoring the prior curriculum
frameworks would "clear the table" for future
curriculum framework changes in accordance with the
new procedures.
Although the plaintiffs prefer to
read Section 1 in strict isolation, Article 4S's

relatedness requirement asks whether reasonable voters
could discern a "meaningful operational relationship"
among all parts of a petition.
220.
Here, a reasonable voter could believe that
reversing the Board's vote and restoring the prior

frameworks would operate alongside the proposed law's
new procedures to change the way curriculum frameworks
are developed and implemented in Massachusetts.
Section 1 facilitates this implementation by returning
the Board to the point just before its July 2010 vote.
As such, it could be viewed by a reasonable voter as
part of a coherent strategy to change the curriculum
frameworks going forward.
A voter who dislikes the
Common Core State Standards might want to discard them

42
without waiting for the next time the Board decided to

adopt new curriculum frameworks.
Thus, Section 1's
repeal of the Common Core State Standards can be said

to facilitate the implementation of the new legal
requirements in Sections 2 and 3.
c.

that publishing test items would
facilitate the implementation of
educational standards derived via
the new processes.
A reasonable voter could believe that requiring

the Commissioner to annually release all diagnostic
assessments, "including questions, constructed
responses and essays, for each grade and every
subject," would assist in the implementation of the
new required procedures for developing educational
standards.
JA 63.
Existing law expressly makes the
assessment tools the external measure of "the extent

to which schools and districts succeed in improving or
fail to improve student performance, as defined by
student acquisition of the skills, competencies and
knowledge called for by the academic standards and
embodied in the curriculum frameworks."
~ lI.
G.L. c. 69,
Assessment results are the picture window
through which all may view the extent to which the

academic standards are being taught and learned.
43
reasonable voter could conclude that public

availability of assessment tools would enhance
knowledge about whether, the academic standards adopted
in accordance with the new procedures are actually
being implemented.
As Section 4 of the petition
states, the public release of test items would "better

inform the teachers and administrators about the
diagnostic assessments."
A reasonable voter
JA 63.
could believe that making the assessments publicly

available would assist in ensuring that assessments
are accurately testing students on the chosen
curriculum frameworks.
Because all parts of the petition would amend

existing procedures for the development and
implementation of public educational standards in the
Commonwealth, the Attorney General properly certified
the petition as meeting the relatedness requirements
of Article 48.
44
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should: (1)
conclude that the Attorney General properly certified

Initiative Petition No. 15-12 in the respects
challenged by the plaintiffs; and (2) order dismissal
of the complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
MAURA HEALEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
;~:
Ju.ia
chae
..
,_
deHaan Rice, B0 # 564918
Firestone, BBO # 689885
ant Attorneys General

A
Government Bureau Bureau
One Ashburton Place
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
(617) 963-2583
juliana.riceCstate.ma.us
On the brief:
Alec Saxe
Law Student Intern
SJC Rule 3.03
Date:
April 6, 2016
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO MASS. R. APP. P. 16(k
I, Juliana deHaan Rice, hereby certify that the

foregoing brief complies with all of the rules of
court that pertain to the filing of briefs, including,
but not limited to, the requirements imposed by Rules
16 and 20 of the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
e
èr ~
_::N:V~
!id
is a~deHaan Rice
si
ant Attorney General
46
ADDENDUM
Amendment Article 48 (Referendum Provisions Omitted)

St. 1920, c. 388
Public Document No. 46, Twenty-Eighth Annual Report of the
Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for the
Year Ending November 30, 1919, page 22
AMENDMENT ARTICLE 48: INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM

(as amended by amend. arts. 67, 74, 81, 108;
Referendum provisions omitted for brevity)
I. DEFINITION
Legislative power shall continue to be vested in
the general court; but the people reserve to
themselves the popular initiative, which is the power
of a specified number of voters to submit
constitutional amendments and laws to the people for
approval or rejection; and the popular referendum,
which is the power of a specified number of voters to
submit laws, enacted by the general court, to the
people for their ratification or rejection.
THE INITIATIVE.
II. INITIATIVE PETITIONS.
Section 1. Contents
An initiative petition shall set forth the full
text of the constitutional amendment or law,
hereinafter designated as the measure, which is
proposed by the petition.
Section 2. Excluded matters
No measure that relates to religion, religious
practices,or religious institutions; or to the
appointment, qualification, tenure, removal, recall or
compensation of judges; or to the reversal of a
judicial decision; or to the powers, creation or
abolition of courts; or the operation of which is
restricted to a particular town, city or other
political division or to particular districts or
localities of the commonwealth; or that makes a
specific appropriation of money from the treasury of
the commonwealth, shall be proposed by an initiative
petition; but if a -law approved by the people is not
repealed, the general court shall raise by taxation or
otherwise and shall appropriate such money as may be
necessary to carry such law into effect.
Neither the eighteenth amendment of the
constitution, as approved and ratified to take effect
on the first day of October in the year nineteen

hundred and eighteen, nor this provision for its
protection, shall be the subject of an initiative
amendment.
No proposition inconsistent with any one of the
following rights of the individual, as at. present
declared in the declaration of rights, shall be the
subject of an initiative or referendum petition: The
right to receive compensation for private property
appropriated to public use; the right of access to
and protection in courts of justice; the right of
trial by jury; protection-,from unreasonable search,
unreasonable bail and the law martial; freedom of the
press; freedom of speech freedom of elections; and
the right of peaceable assembly.
No part of the constitution specifically
excluding any matter from the operation of the popular
initiative and referendum shall be the subject of an
initiative petition; nor shall this section be the
subject of such a petition.
The limitations on the legislative power of the
general court in the constitution shall extend to the
legislative power of the people as exercised
hereunder.
Section 3. Mode of Originating
Such petition shall first be signed by ten
qualified voters of the commonwealth and shall be
submitted to the attorney-general not later than the
first Wednesday of the August before the assembling of
the general court into which it is to be introduced,
and if he shall certify that the measure and the title
thereof are in proper form for submission to the
people, and that the measure is not, either
affirmatively or negatively, substantially the same as
any measure which has been qualified for submission or
submitted to the people at either of the two preceding
biennial state elections, and that it contains only
subjects not excluded from the popular initiative and
which are related or which are mutually dependent, it
may then be filed with the secretary of the
commonwealth. The secretary of the commonwealth shall
provide blanks for the use of subsequent signers, and
shall print at the top of each blank a fair, concise

summary, as determined by the attorney-general, of the
proposed measure as such summary will appear on the
ballot together with the names and residences of the
first ten signers. All initiative petitions, with the
first ten signatures attached, shall be filed with the
secretary of the commonwealth not earlier than the
first Wednesday of the September before the assembling
of the general court into which they are to be
introduced, and the remainder of the required
signatures shall be filed not later than the first
Wednesday of the following December.
Section 4. Transmission to the General Court
If an initiative petition, signed by the required
number of qualified voters, has been filed as
aforesaid, the secretary of the commonwealth shall,
upon the assembling of the general court, transmit it
to the clerk of the house of representatives, and the
proposed measure shall then be deemed to be introduced
and pending.
III. LEGISLATIVE ACTION.
GENERAL PROVISIONS.
Section 1. Reference to Committee

If a measure is introduced into the general court
by initiative petition, it shall be referred to a

committee thereof, and the petitioners and all parties
in interest shall be heard, and the measure shall be
considered and reported upon to the general court with
the committee's recommendations, and the reasons
therefor, in writing. Majority and minority reports_
shall be signed by the members of said committee.
Section 2. Legislative Substitutes
The general court may, by resolution passed by
yea and nay vote, either by the two houses separately,
or in the case of a constitutional amendment by a
majority of those voting thereon in joint session in
each of two years as hereinafter provided, submit to
the. people a substitute for any measure introduced by
initiative petition, such substitute to be designated
on .the ballot as the legislative substitute for such
an initiative measure and to~be grouped with it as an
alternative therefor.
~
IV..LEGISLATIVE ACTION ON PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL

.AMENDMENTS.
Section 1. Definition
A proposal for ~.mendment to the constitution
introduced into the general court by initiative
petition shall be designated an initiative amendment,
and an amendment introduced by a member of either
house shall be designated a legislative substitute or
a legislative amendment.
Section 2. Joint Session
If a proposal for a specific amendment of the
constitution is introduced into the general court by
initiative petition signed in the aggregate by not
less than such number of voters as will equal three
per cent of the entire vote cast for governor at the
preceding biennial state election, or if in case of a
proposal for amendment introduced into the general
court by a member of either house, consideration
thereof in joint session is called for by vote of
either house, such proposal shall, not later than the
second V~tednesday. in May, be laid before a joint
session of the two houses, at which the president of
the senate shall preside; and if the two houses fail
to agree ia.pon a time for holding any joint session
hereby required, or fail to continue the same from
time to time until final action. has been taken upon
all amendments pending, the governor shall call such
joint session or continuance thereof.
Section 3. Amendment of Proposed Amendments
A proposal for an amendment_to the constitution
introduced by initiative petition shall be voted upon
in the form in which it was introduced, unless such
amendment.is amended by vote of three-fourths of the
members voting thereon in joint session, which vote
shall be taken by call of the yeas and nays if called
for by any member.
Section 4. Legislative Action
'
Final legislative action in the joint session

upon any amendment shall be taken only by call of the
yeas and nays, which shall be entered upon the
journals of the two houses; and an unfavorable vote
at any stage preceding final action shall be verified
by call of the yeas and nays, to be entered in like
manner. At such joint session a legislative amendment
receiving the affirmative votes of a majority of all
the members elected, or an initiative amendment
receiving the affirmative votes of not less than
one-fourth of all the members elected, shall be
referred to the next general court.
Section 5. Submission to the People
If in the next general court a legislative
amendment shall again be agreed to in joint session by
a majority of all the members elected, or if an
initiative amendment or a.legislative substitute shall
again receive the affirmative votes of at least
one-fourth of all the members elected, such fact shall
be certified by the clerk of such joint session to the
secretary of the commonwealth, who shall submit the
amendment to the people at the next state election.
Such amendment shall become part of the constitution
if approved, in the case of a legislative amendment,
by a majority of the voters voting thereon, or if
approved, in the case of an initiative amendment or a
legislative substitute, by voters equal in number to
at least thirty per cent of the total number of
ballots cast at such state election and also by a
majority of the voters voting on such amendment.
V. LEGISLATIVE ACTION ON PROPOSED LAWS.
Section 1. Legislative Procedure
If an initiative petition for a law is introduced
into the general court, signed in the aggregate by not
less than such number of voters as will equal three
per cent of the entire vote cast for governor at the
preceding biennial state election, a vote shall be
taken by yeas and nays in both houses before the first
Wednesday of May upon the enactment of such law in the
form in which it stands in such petition. If the
general court fails to enact such law before the first
Wednesday of May, and if such petition is completed by
filing with the secretary of the commonwealth, not

earlier than the first Wednesday of .the following June
nor later than the first Wednesday of the following
July, a number of signatures of qualified voters equal
in number to not less than one half of one per cent of
the entire vote cast for governor at the preceding
biennial state election, in addition to those signing
such initiative petition, which signatures must have
been obtained after the first Wednesday of May
aforesaid, then the secretary of the commonwealth
shall submit such proposed law to the people at the
next state election. If it shall be approved by
voters equal in number to at least thirty per cent of
the total number of ballots cast at such state
election and also by a majority of the voters voting
on such law, it shall become law, and shall take
effect in thirty days after such state election or at
such time after such election as may be provided in
such law.
Section 2. Amendment by Petitioners
If the general court fails to pass a proposed law
before the first Wednesday of May, a majority of the
first ten signers of the initiative petition therefor
shall have the right, subject to certification by the
attorney-general filed as hereinafter provided, to
amend the measure which is the subject of such.
petition. An amendment so made shall not invalidate
any signature attached to the petition. If the
measure so amended, signed by a majority of the first
ten signers, is filed with the secretary of the
commonwealth before the first Wednesday of the
following June, together with a certificate signed by
the attorney-general to the effect that the amendment
made by such proposers is in his opinion perfecting in
its nature and does .not materially change the
substance of the measure, and if such petition is
completed by filing with the secretary of the
commonwealth, not earlier than the first Wednesday of
the following June nor later than the first Wednesday
of the following July, a number of signatures of
qualified voters equal .in number to not less than one
half of one per cent of the entire vote cast for
governor at the preceding biennial state election in
addition to those signing such initiative petition,
which signatures must have been obtained after the
first Wednesday of May aforesaid, then the secretary

of the commonwealth shall submit the measure to the
people in its amended form.
VI. CONFLICTING AND ALTERNATIVE MEASURES.
If in any judicial proceeding, provisions of
constitutional amendments or of laws approved by the
people at the same election are held to be in
conflict, then the provisions contained in the measure
that received the largest number of affirmative votes
at such election shall govern.
A constitutional amendment approved at any

election shall govern any law approved at the same
election.
The general court, by resolution passed as
hereinbefore set forth, may provide for grouping and
designating upon.the ballot as conflicting measures or
as alternative measures, only one of which is to be
adopted, any two or more proposed constitutional
amendments or laws which have been or may be passed or
qualified for submission to the people at any one
election: provided, that a proposed constitutional
amendment and a proposed law shall not be so grouped,
and that the ballot shall afford an opportunity to the
voter to vote for each of the measures or for only one
of the measures, as may be provided in said
resolution, or against each of the measures so grouped
as conflicting or as alternative. In case more than
one of the measures so grouped shall receive the vote
required 'for its approval as herein provided, only
that one for which the largest affirmative vote was
cast shall be deemed to be approved.
[Provisions governing Referendum omitted]
GENERAL PROVISIONS.
I. IDENTIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF SIGNATURES.
Provision shall be made by law for the proper
identification and certification of signatures to the
petitions hereinbefore referred to, and for penalties
for signing any such petition, or refusing to sign it,
for money or other valuable consideration, and for the
forgery of signatures thereto. Pending the passage of

such legislation all provisions of law relating to the
identification and certification of signatures to
petitions for the nomination of candidates for state
offices or to penalties for the forgery of such
signatures shall apply to the signatures to the
petitions herein referred to. The general court may
provide by law that no co-partnership or corporation
shall undertake for hire or reward to circulate
petitions, may require individuals who .circulate
petitions for hire or reward to be licensed, and may
make other reasonable regulations to prevent abuses
arising from the circulation -of petitions for hire or
reward.
II. LIMITATION ON SIGNATURES.
Not more than one-fourth of the certified
signatures on any petition shall be those of
registered voters of any one county.
III. FORM OF BALLOT.
A fair, Concise summary, as determined by the .
attorney general, subject to such provision as may be
made by law, of each proposed amendment to the
constitution, and each law submitted to the people,
shall be printed on the ballot, and the secretary of
the commonwealth shall give each question a number and
cause such question, except as otherwise authorized
herein, to be printed on the ballot in the following
form:
In the case of an amendment to the constitution:
Do you approve of the adoption of an amendment to
the constitution summarized below, (here state,
in distinctive type, whether approved or
disapproved by the general court, and by what
vote thereon)?
YES
NO
(Set forth summary here)
In the case of a law: Do you approve of a law

summarized below, (here state, in distinctive
type, whether approved or disapproved by the

general court, and by what vote thereon)?
YES
NO
(Set forth summary here)
IV. INFORMATION FOR VOTERS.
The secretary of the commonwealth shall cause to
be printed and sent to each person eligible to vote in
the commonwealth or to each residence of one or more
persons eligible to vote in the commonwealth the full
text of every measure to be submitted to the people,
together with a copy of the legislative committee's
majority reports, if there be such, with the names of
the majority and minority members thereon, a statement
of the votes of the general court on the measure, and
a fair, concise summary of the measure as such summary
will appear on the ballot; and shall, in such manner
as may be provided by law, cause to be prepared and
sent other information and arguments for and against
the measure.
V. THE VETO POWER OF THE GOVERNOR.
The veto power of the governor shall not extend
to measures approved by the people.
VI. THE GENERAL COURT'S POWER OF REPEAL.
Subject to the veto power of the governor and to
the right of referendum by petition as herein
provided, the general court may amend or repeal a law
approved by the people.
VII. AMENDMENT DECLARED TO BE SELF- EXECUTING.
This article of amendment to the constitution is
self-executing, but legislation not inconsistent .with
anything herein contained may be enacted to facilitate
the operation of its provisions.
VIII. ARTICLES IX .AND XLII OF AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION

ANNULLED.
Article IX and Article XLII of the amendments of the

constitution are hereby annulled.
St. 1920, co 388
Acmes, 1920. CxAYS. `38"r, 388.
391
E FOIL 1~lEASURES ~~~(~~.c3cS~c~

c'~N ACT PRESCRI}3ING A~'1 EN~s.CTI\`C3 ST~'L
IIVITIATiVE PRO
THL'
R
TJVDL
LE
~P~OP
SU7311IITTED TO TI3E
IO~i.
ITIIT
CONST
THE
01'
VISIONS
Be tit en~~cGecl, efc., us follo~~s:

~~~'~ BtY~e
;5r,~tou L ;_The enacting style of gill me~isures submitted for initiativetG,
`'
Pry-snv~
t~.~ the p~cople iii,pursua,nc~ of yin initiative petition for a la4u
~
r~
;
;iPeople, and ,by ,tr
l ~i.11 '~ ~ _ : - ]t, ii. enacted ley .the _
___`.___~_ _.
tliorit~~:
.
~
in
lLh,
n5vea
commo
e
's~rTOt~y of
SEC1iu-,,'. 'l~h,. ~>ecret~ry of.th
eba ~~aucompleted, a s
:y
for ~~~~rhich ~ini~atave~ petitions are
~
ina bills
~ross
~v~in ~'
~
t
~.
t11e I~er-isec~
~of
'.ioserk nnaoEing
three
apter
o~~cb
een
ninet
on
eIl~~yn g e,i~~, ~~rovidecl %n secti
anc~
red
hund
one
ter
ch~ip
La,~~s, ~s ~tinended b~}~ section oue of
e~~,
~~,nd.~t~~cl~e,~ end 6y
se~~en~}r of the acts of iiineteeli hundred
.
~
sisty-four of tht~
and
red
htuid
three
section one of chapter
t
inser
shill
nineteen,
'General Lets of niuetccn htuiclre~l azid
by 'section one, iii
ribed
presc
e
claus
ina
cna,ct
the
in
there
~TIIl of Chapter
~ticic
rl
by
ribed
substitution for'ttiat presc
n
of the co~uirionitutio
~~rist
the
of
nd
VI of Park the Seco
'
'
nctit.
wealt`-h -or fur any other st}dc of enact
~~pprovecl Apr~.l ~D, ~92~.
~~Q ~Q~~or~~~lt~j ~~
~~~~~~p~~~tt~,
~OUS~ OF ~.EPR~SE1YT11TIVES, ~.pFl~ 13, 1~2~.
Tha joins committee on the ~udici~,ry, to tivhor~ wa,s re~- .ferred so much of the twenty-eigh~h annual ~repor~;, of the
Secretary of the Commonwealth (PLi~. I3oc. No. 4E) as xela,~es to cer~ifieu' p~iotost~,tic eQpies of tke .reties and ,regulations of co,omissions, boards and o~cia,is, a,rid to indicating
-..the style try b~ used in tine ~nbzoss:~~nt aid printing of laws
approved by the people itnc3er the iiii~iative provisions ~f the
Con~~itution, repori, (in part) the accompanying bill.
Iòr the committee,
J~3HN C. HTJLL.
r'
House Bill Na. 1585 (1920)

(continued)
__ ~,
_,
~
2 ~
HOUSE No. 1555.
[Apr. 1920.
i
'~
~~~ ~Otfl8l~Olt~~~~t~j
~~ ~~~~~~~~~~tt~.
1
In the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty.

i
1
~~~
1
i
Prescribing an Enacting Style for Measures.Submitted to the

People under the Initiative Provisions of the Constitu~ ','
tion.
Be it enacted by the ;Senate and House of I~epresentatir~es
in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the ~;_.J
same, as follows:
S~c~ioN 1. The enacting style of all measures sub2 miffed to the people in pursuance of an initiative petition.
3 for a la~-FV shall be: Be it enacted .by the people, and by ,,~~
4 their authority.
r
1
SEC~ror7 2. The secretary of the commonwealth, in '. .

a~
2 engrossing bills for which initiative petitions are com-
of
3 pleted, as provided in section nineteen of .chapter three
-.'
4 the Revised Laws, as amended by section one of chapter..
d
5 one hundred and seventy of the acts of nineteen hundre
d :'
6 and twelve, and by section one of chapter three hundre
d
7 and sixty-four of the General 'Acts of nineteen hundre
nb clause ~'
8 anc~ nineteen, shall insert therein the enacti
that pre9 prescribed by section one, i~. substitution for
the con10 scribed by Article VIII of the amendments to
11 stitution or fox any other style of enact~ient.
_,
Public Document No. 46,

Twenty-Eighth Annual Report of the
Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
for the Year Ending November 30, 1919, page 22
I'~o. 46
Public ]Jocum.e~.t
T~'PENB'X-EIGHTH ANl~UAL l~EPORT

OL` THE
~~CRET~,~ OF T~ ~ COIVIl~ON~EALTI3
.-
.~
OF
.MAS~ACHT7SE~TS
FOR THE
YEAR ENDING NOVEMBER 3~,
_M
-_~,~
~.:
~_~
1919
w
S,
r
/"
III
BOSTON
tiPRIGHT &POTTER PRINTING CO., STATE PRINTERS
32 DERNE STIi.EET
1920
Public Document No..46,

Twenty-Eighth Annual Report of the
Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
for ''the Year, Ending November 30, 1919, page 22
(continued)
22
SECRETARY'S REPORT.
[Jan
of the commonwealth." The Secretary is required annually,

or oftener if he deems it necessary, to publish such rules, etc.;
as a public document. This -publication has proven to be ate
unnecessary expense to the Commonwealth, and I recommend
that the statute be so changed as to enable the Secretary to
produce certified photostatic copies thereof when ordered for
use in evidence or otherwise, in the same _manner and with the
same effect as when he furnishes certified copies of a,ny of the
certificates and records on file in his office.
:'`~
;
;:;~
`:
'~
ENACTING CLAUSE FOR LASS'APPROVED . BY TFIE PEOPLE.
> !d
;{
;~
The'Constitutional Coiivention failed to provide a form of
enacting style for laws approved by the people under the ~'
Initiative and k~ eferendum Amendment to ~ the Constitution.
The amendment referred'to provides, hovsTever, that "The provisions of the initiative and referendum are self-executing, but
. , legislation riot inconsistent with. anything therein contained
.
may ~be enacted to facilitate the operation of such.provisions."
!I
I therefore recommend .that suitable legislation be enacted to
used
when
engross~
be
style
to
.describe the form of the enacting
~
_ ing and. printing the.laws approved by the people under the
initiative provisions of said:constitutional amendment.
DEDICATION OF. STATE HOUSE AUDITORIiTI~I.
I respectfully suggest for the consideration of the General

Court the dedication of the State Hottse Auditorium to the
.late Maj. Augustus Peabody Gardner, our distinguished mem'. ber of Congress from the Sixth District of 1Vlassa,chusetts, who
~,
resigned from Congress to enter the aimy.
Major. GardnEr served two terms in the Massac~iusetts Senate '' ;
with distinction (1899-1900). ~Ie was elected to Congress in
.1902 and served with high honor until Mai 22, 1917, when he
resigned. ~e was long identified ~vith the Massachusetts
militia, and in 1898, when we went to war with Spain, he re- - "
ceived a commission in the army and was assigned to the staff
of 1VYaj.-Gen. James H. Wilson as captain and assistant adju=
tart-beneral, being commended by the general for his unrivaled
and intelligent devotion to duty. For some years -after the
'_
_ j .

SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

iI~.

Supreme Judicial Court

STEPHANIE GRAY,ROBERT f~NTONUCCI, BILL WALCZAK,DIANNE KELLY,

MAURA HEALEY,IN I~ER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE AT.TOE~NEY GENERAL,

ON RESERVATION .a~1D REPORT FROt~1 THE

BRIEF O]F THE APPELLEES

Prior Proceedings ...............................2

Attorney General's Certification

Substance of the Petition .............4

SiJMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .....

THE PROPOSED LAW IS IN PROPER FORM FOR

Properly Read as a Whole, the

The Effect of a Petition Must

Considered in Its Entirety,

the Measure Would

Isolation, Section 1 of the

Section l would restore

Section l~would have the

Sections 2, 3, and 4 Are Not

"Subsidiary and Incidental to

The Omission of One Word in the

Enacting Style Does Not Make the

The Absence of the Word "By"

The Enacting Style Is a

Provide a Basis for the

THE PROPOSED LAW SATISFIES THE

The Relatedness Test Requires That

a Reasonable Voter Be Able to

The Proposed Law Satisfies the

The Proposed Law Would Amend

Each of the Proposed Law's

Common Purpose of Adopting

A reasonable voter could

A reasonable voter could

A reasonable voter could

Public Document No. 46, Twenty-Eighth

Associated Indus. of Massachusetts v.

v. Secretary of the Commonwealth,

Secretary of the Commonwealth,

Nigro v. Attorney General,

Paisner v. Attorney General,

Rules and Regulations

sponsor, Representative Hull .........

House Bill No. 1585 ........x.........................26

Annual Report of the Secretary of the

Did the Attorney General pzoperly certify

that an Article 48 initiative petition is in. proper

Did the Attorney General properly certify that

the petition satisfies Article 48's "relatedness"

This is a challenge to the Attorney General's

Standards," which is currently on track to appear on

Consistent with usual

practice in these matters, the parties filed a

T.he case was entered in this court on March 1.

Due to printing deadlines for the Information for

In~ keeping with the

the Attorney General

numbered the petition 15-12.

Thereafter, the Secretary prepared and

On or before the first Wednesday

in December 2015; the proponents gathered and filed

As required by Article 48,

if the Legislature does not enact the proposed law by

Substance of the Petition