From the bevy of ballot questions Massachusetts voters decided on in this week's election, the most resounding "yes" came for the first.
The Commonwealth is one of just two states who exempt its legislative and executive branches from public records laws, and the only to shield the judiciary as well.
With almost 86% of the vote, Question 1's success means public records laws will now expand to lawmakers and the governor's office. The effort was spearheaded by Democratic State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, who has been embroiled in a battle to audit lawmakers' books since she took office in 2023.
In the 2024 election, another ballot question authorizing her to perform the investigation was also backed by voters.
DiZoglio spoke with Berkshire Bureau Chief Josh Landes.
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
Editor's note: This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
DiZoglio: The Commonwealth came out in droves to call on the legislature to be subject to the public records law, as every other state entity is subject to the public records law. This brings us in alignment with every other state in the nation. Our legislature is frequently ranked as the least transparent, least accessible legislature in the entire nation, and hopefully this new law changes that.
Landes: Legislators have been keen to point out that they themselves are working on their own law about transparency measures for lawmakers on Beacon Hill. What are your thoughts on that, and what do you make of the legislation they're considering?
DiZoglio: What's true is that the legislature has certainly passed legislation to overturn the will of the voters in advance of this election, understanding full well that people have become fed up with the way the legislature operates in the dark under a veil of secrecy. So, they are indeed and in fact trying to get legislation to the governor's desk to override the will of the people, to undermine the ballot question, and to limit your access to public records, rather than what the claim is, which is that they are supposedly trying to increase transparency. That's a bogus claim. They need to follow the will of the people, obey the law that the voters just came out to pass.
Landes: Now, of course, these comments come after this ongoing protracted effort to audit the legislature on your part. That itself involved the last time you went to the people with a referendum vote on the ballot about transparency on Beacon Hill. Given the complicated outcome of that effort, what are your thoughts going into this newest chapter of this ongoing back-and-forth over auditing the legislature?
DiZoglio: 72% of the electorate came out to say that they wanted an audit of the legislature to be conducted by my office. Lawmakers have since done nothing but break the law and deny the results of the election. In response, the voters came out and they passed a new law with 86-plus percent of the vote to hold the legislature to account by subjecting them to the public records law, so that every single person in this Commonwealth has direct access to the taxpayer-funded records that they are hiding from the electorate right now, what it says is that the people are energized and the people are motivated, and that we're not giving up.
Landes: Catch us up to where this effort sits right now. Where do things stand? The judiciary has gotten involved. Where do things stand with this audit effort right now?
DiZoglio: Regarding the audit effort, we are headed to court in just a couple of weeks. We are going to go before the court to make our case to get access to the first set of records that we have requested but been denied. In the meantime, the legislature has been balking at our court case and has refused to turn over basic financial receipts and state contracting information, we are hoping that they do not try to overturn the law before that court case, and we're hoping that the courts decide to side with the people and not the powerful politicians.
Landes: I think the midterms in this case underscored this unique thing about Massachusetts. You're one of the rare Democrats who sort of does not go along with this broader party line. When you see across the country more progressive voices in the Democratic Party emerging right now and muddying the waters of the party's identity, maybe more than they would have 10 years ago, what do you think this says about Massachusetts, where incumbency continues to be such a powerful voice and such a powerful deterrent to new voices in the Massachusetts political system?
DiZoglio: I think that with respect to Massachusetts, a lot of people have woken up to the need for bold and meaningful change, not just as it pertains to being necessary on Beacon Hill, but also within the party establishments themselves, we have unfortunately seen that even though we, as Democrats, for example, call out the fact that we do not support kings in America, that we unfortunately have people acting like kings and queens right here at the Massachusetts State House, and I think that it's unfortunate that that has had to become something that we've learned about through our own party on the Democratic side as being the case.
Where here in Massachusetts, I think that oftentimes the finger can get pointed very quickly at the federal level, but it doesn't really ever get pointed back at our own state level government and the need for reforms here. So, what I can speak to is just what I've seen at the state level, where people across America are clearly getting fed up. People acting like dictators and allowing authoritarianism to take hold and take root in D.C. and across this nation. I think here in Massachusetts, people are waking up to the reality that we have just as much of a threat of authoritarianism right here at home, and that our Democratic Party needs to do a better job of standing up to that threat of authoritarianism within our own party as well, and you're starting to see people speak up and speak out about that a lot more.
