NORTHAMPTON — Massachusetts’ highest court on Monday struck down a proposed “millionaire tax” ballot question, blocking it from going before state voters in November and ending advocates’ hopes for generating some $2 billion in additional revenue for education and transportation.
The Supreme Judicial Court, in a 5-2 ruling, said the initiative petition should not have been certified by Democratic Attorney General Maura Healey because it violated the “relatedness” clause of the state constitution that prohibits ballot questions from mingling unrelated subjects — in this case, taxing and spending.
The court’s ruling drew widespread criticism from state officials and candidates in this year’s elections.
“I’m extremely disappointed,” Northampton Mayor David Narkewicz said, lamenting the fact that his city won’t be receiving the much-needed funding the measure might have brought. “People want quality schools, they want to fix our roads … They want rail.”
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jay Gonzalez, who appeared alongside Narkewicz at the Bluebonnet Diner on Monday, also voiced displeasure at the court’s decision.
“I’ve been really clear in support of the millionaire’s tax,” Gonzalez said. If elected, he said, he will back initiatives to fund “critical investments” like education and transportation. “I will propose another progressive way to ask those who are doing well in this state to pay a little more.”
The proposed tax, referred to as the “Fair Share Amendment” by its proponents, including Massachusetts grassroots organization Raise Up, would have created a 4 percent surtax on any portion of an individual’s annual income that exceeds $1 million.
Raise Up, which was a fierce advocate for the proposed tax and collected more than 150,000 signatures in support of the measure, expressed disappointment and frustration at the decision to leave the question off the ballot, which Raise Up estimate would generate $1.9 billion in revenue in 2019 alone.
State Sen. Eric Lesser, D-Longmeadow, also expressed frustration with the SJC’s decision, which he said would affect western Massachusetts specifically.
“This decision by the state’s highest court will have the greatest impact on our communities in western Massachusetts, which have long struggled to gain attention and financial support from Beacon Hill,” Lesser said in a statement, adding, “This ballot proposal was a potential solution to this historic funding gap.”
Business groups, including the Massachusetts High Technology Council, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation and the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, had opposed the ballot measure. The groups argued before the court in February that the millionaire tax would hurt the state’s economy and business climate, causing wealthy residents and business owners to leave Massachusetts.
Central to the SJC’s decision is the concept of “logrolling” or placing more than one objective in a single proposed constitutional amendment. The proposed surtax would have to be implemented through an amendment to the state’s constitution because of the current requirement of a uniform or “flat” tax rate. Massachusetts is among only nine states with a flat tax, but previous attempts to change the constitution to allow a graduated income tax were defeated by voters.
In the court’s decision, Justice Frank Gaziano wrote, “Including it on the ballot would place a reasonable voter in the untenable position of casting a single vote on two or more dissimilar subjects.”
The SJC’s chief justice, Ralph Gants, and associate justice Kimberly Budd dissented from the majority opinion.
Budd wrote that the court’s analysis of the relatedness provision was “flawed,” and keeping the proposal from voters was “incompatible” with the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
Healey expressed disappointment Monday, saying she believed her office correctly had certified the question.
Area legislative candidates largely condemned the court’s decision.
Democratic state Senate candidate Chelsea Kline of Northampton said in a statement, “Once again, the wealthy and powerful have interfered with our efforts to invest in our schools, invest in our roads, and begin to reverse the rising levels of inequality in the commonwealth.”
Democrat Eric Nakajima, candidate for state representative for the 3rd Hampshire District, termed the decision “very disappointing.”
Jo Comerford of Northampton, a write-in candidate for state Senate, issued a statement saying “The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision to block the Fair Share Amendment is a major setback to making the Commonwealth’s tax code more fair.”
Others expressed support for the ruling. Republican candidate for attorney general Dan Shore, of Hingham, accused Healey of putting politics over the law in certifying the measure.
The decision also found support from the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research, which “applauded” the SJC’s ruling. The Boston think tank argued that the millionaire tax would slow economic growth, lead to business leaving the commonwealth, and said it would bring in much less than the projected figure of $2 billion in revenue.
Despite the SJC’s ruling, candidates, officials, and groups around the state vowed to continue the fight for a fair, progressive income tax.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bob Massie said in a statement that it’s now up to the Legislature “to create a progressive income tax amendment here in the state that we can once again bring in front of the public, who will most assuredly pass it.”
Similarly, Comerford, Nakajima and Kline all promised to fight for a fair and progressive income tax if elected.
Republican Gov. Charlie Baker has remained relatively quiet on the issue of millionaire tax, simply saying in a statement to the press last June that “we shouldn’t be raising taxes on hard-working people in Massachusetts,” Baker said. “We should be focusing on finding ways to do our jobs more effectively and efficiently.”
The Associated Press and staff writer Dusty Christensen contributed to this report.