I was asked about the audit of the Massachusetts state legislature this morning during an interview on Attleboro’s 1320 AM WARA. My response was along these lines:
- The state auditor says it is constitutional.
- The state legislature says it is not constitutional.
Therefore, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court needs to determine if the audit is constitutional or not.
If the audit is constitutional, the legislature needs to submit to the audit.
If it is not constitutional, the state auditor could accept the offer the legislature presented, which was to have a third-party audit firm conduct the audit, or drop the issue.
Some people may insist that 72% of the population voted for it and therefore it must be done.
Consider this – if 72% of the voters said we are going to repeal the Second Amendment would that be a done deal? What if 92% of the voters said we are going to repeal any constitutional provision, would that mean 92% of voters get their way? Clearly, NO, to both.
Constitutional provisions at the state and federal levels always supersede laws, including laws created by a ballot initiative. This is by design as it is important that constitutional ‘rights’ and provisions be preserved, and altering these rights or provisions enshrined in a constitution is much more difficult than passing or changing a law.
Consider that regulations can change from administration to administration. Laws are harder to change. The constitution is very difficult to change by design.
For what it is worth, the legislature’s argument that it is unconstitutional may be found in Chapter I, Section III, subsection XI, which states, “…the senate and house of representatives may try, and determine, all cases where their rights and privileges are concerned, and which, by the constitution, they have authority to try and determine, by committees of their own members, or in such other way as they may respectively think best.”
This section of the state constitution “may” mean that the state constitution allows the legislature to set its own “rights and privileges” and is not subject to outside interference, including a ballot question. It may also not lead to that conclusion.
The state supreme court needs to weigh in.
Paul Heroux is the sheriff of Bristol County, was mayor of Attleboro, and was a state representative who served on the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security. Paul has a master’s in criminology from the University of Pennsylvania, and a master’s in public administration from Harvard.
Follow him on Facebook here.
