NOTES BETWEEN PRINTED EDITIONS ARE PLACED ONLINE HERE.
You miss a lot if you miss the printed edition….

DiZoglio Blasts New Bill Limiting Scope of Legislative Audit

by Sam Drysdale
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE REPORTER

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, June 2, 2026…..After a year and a half of lawsuits and public sparring, House Democrats on Tuesday unveiled legislation that would essentially redefine how the 2024 voter mandate to audit the Legislature is carried out.

The bill (H 5469), which was quickly scheduled for a House vote Wednesday, represents one of the most significant developments yet in the long-running fallout from the 2024 ballot question that empowered Auditor Diana DiZoglio to audit the Legislature — a measure approved by 72% of voters despite fierce opposition from legislative leaders.

House leaders are pitching the proposal as a transparency package that would establish new public access rights to legislative records while creating what Speaker Ronald Mariano described as a clear framework for legislative audits that respects constitutional separation of powers principles.

DiZoglio sees it very differently.

“The People have a co-equal right with the Legislature to create laws, and the courts have a constitutional right to adjudicate laws. With this proposed bill, and under the guise of transparency, your state representatives are not only throwing the 72% voter-mandated law in the dumpster – they’re taking a match and lighting that dumpster on fire, violating the People’s constitutional rights and undermining democracy,” the auditor said Tuesday.

In a lengthy social media video Tuesday afternoon, she said House leaders were “painting this as some sort of a transparency measure” while “essentially negating everything that you voted for in the November 2024 ballot question.”

“They are conducting a victory lap right now for themselves, patting themselves on the back for helping to ensure transparency and accountability, and using all the buzz words,” she said.

The bill would amend Chapter 11, which governs the auditor’s office, and create a new section specifically defining the scope of audits of the Legislature.

Rather than the broad authority contemplated by the 2024 ballot law, audits would be limited to four categories of administrative functions: legislative budgets, legislative audits, expenditures of appropriated funds, and monetary settlement agreements involving legislative employees or members.

The 2024 audit law states that the auditor “shall audit the accounts, programs, activities and functions directly related to” the Legislature and further states that the auditor’s office “shall have access to such accounts at reasonable times and the department may require the production of books, documents, vouchers and other records relating to any matter within the scope of an audit conducted under this section or section 13, except tax returns.”

The legislation would also limit reviews to records dating back to fiscal year 2021.

And it would remove courts from disputes between the auditor and the Legislature, declaring that no court would have jurisdiction to compel records, enforce interview requests or adjudicate disagreements arising from such audits. Instead, the auditor’s sole remedy would be to report any noncompliance in an audit report.

DiZoglio seized on that provision Tuesday, arguing lawmakers were attempting to insulate themselves from judicial oversight.

“They also have language in this bill that says that the courts are not even allowed to adjudicate these matters,” she said. “If there’s any disagreement about the few little records that they’re going to breadcrumb us with, if even on those things we have any sort of a disagreement, they are saying that the courts don’t have a right to hear the case, adjudicate it, and settle the dispute.”

“This is not a step in the right direction,” she added. “This is craziness.”

House leaders defended that provision Tuesday as a necessary protection of the Legislature’s constitutional independence.

Asked why the bill would bar courts from resolving disputes between the auditor and lawmakers, Mariano replied, “It’s another branch of government. The separation of powers is the issue for us.”

Justices on the Supreme Judicial Court last month expressed interest in using the court to settle the constitutionality question.

“Ultimately, you two don’t get to decide to leave it in limbo indefinitely, because the people have an interest in having that resolved, and this court ultimately decides whether that’s constitutional or not, not you,” Justice Scott Kafker said. “So how do we push this to resolution so the people get at least a determination whether that’s constitutional or not, those [four] items.”

Mariano drew a distinction between the audit language and a separate section of the bill that would allow judicial review of disputes over legislative records requests.

“Because the request for public records comes from, not from the government, comes from individuals,” Mariano said when asked why courts could review one type of dispute but not the other.

The provision reflects the same constitutional concerns legislative Democrats have raised repeatedly since voters approved the audit law. The proposal emerged after legislative leaders spent more than a year arguing that the law approved by voters was unconstitutional while declining repeated Republican calls to seek an advisory opinion from the Supreme Judicial Court.

Whether the effort to narrowly define the scope of the auditor’s mandate succeeds will largely depend on the Senate.

The House can pass the bill Wednesday, but it cannot become law without Senate approval. A Senate leader appeared caught off guard Tuesday by the House’s approach.

“I don’t even know what it is, what’s in it,” Sen. Cindy Friedman told the News Service at an unrelated event in Boston, saying she had only just heard the news. “I’m surprised, I didn’t expect it.”

When a reporter said Tuesday that the bill would need Senate approval as well, Mariano responded, “I talked to the Senate. I talked to the Senate.”

Last week, the Senate passed a resolution to provide some financial records sought by DiZoglio after the Supreme Judicial Court cleared the way for her office to proceed. The documents were delivered Monday, Friedman said.

In pursuing a new law, Mariano said the House viewed a legislative resolution as insufficient to resolve the broader dispute.

“Amongst the leadership team, we decided that this was a good opportunity to work on the two issues that were on our docket that involve transparency,” Mariano said.

The legislation’s second major component deals with public records.

The proposal would not subject the Legislature to the state’s existing public records law, Chapter 66. Instead, it would create a separate statute establishing a legislative records request process and defining 17 categories of records that would be public.

Those categories include legislation, resolutions, amendments, summaries, fiscal notes, committee votes, committee electronic poll results, finalized leadership assignments, calendars, journals, enacted laws, legislative manuals, financial records submitted to the comptroller, written conflict-of-interest disclosures under Chapter 268A, and other finalized legislative documents.

Many of those records are already publicly available today.

Asked what records on the list are not already public, House leaders could not name any. Mariano largely emphasized timeliness and process.

“The issue is that these are the documents that are in demand,” he said.

Rep. Alice Peisch said the bill’s value lies in moving existing practices from legislative rules into statute.

“I think it’s also important that this really clarifies what are the legislative records that are public, it establishes a very clear process, puts it in statute,” Peisch said.

“When we put this into statute, I think this shows a certain level of seriousness on the part of the Legislature to make these as easily available to the public as possible.”

That argument was echoed by Common Cause Massachusetts Executive Director Geoff Foster, whose organization worked with House leaders on the public records portion of the legislation over the past few weeks.

“Which is true,” Foster said when asked whether most of the records covered by the bill are already public. “Now they won’t just be offered at the good grace of the Legislature through their rules, but instead are enshrined in state law, guaranteeing the public the right of access and including a judicial review component if someone disagrees with the ultimate decision.”

The proposal comes as a separate citizen-backed ballot question is advancing toward the November ballot that would broadly apply the public records law to both the Legislature and governor’s office. Legislative Democrats have opposed that approach, arguing it raises privacy and constitutional concerns about the ballot question.

Supporters of the House bill framed Tuesday’s proposal as a better alternative.

The ACLU of Massachusetts said it “strongly support[s]” the legislation and argued it would make a separate ballot initiative unnecessary.

“We strongly support the bill the House is poised to pass, which incorporates our input on public records reform and builds on a framework for public access that we and fellow advocates have long supported,” Executive Director Carol Rose said. “Passage of these thoughtful, pragmatic, and legally defensible reforms – spearheaded by the Legislature itself – would be the best path forward, making a ballot initiative on the same topic unnecessary.”

Foster said Common Cause worked only on the public records portion of the bill, not the audit language, and has advocated since 2018 for a legislative records system distinct from Chapter 66 because simply applying the existing law to the Legislature could create constitutional problems.

“It’s difficult to simply plug the Legislature in the existing public records law, it’s like trying to put a square peg into a round hole,” Foster said.

The bill would, however, subject the governor’s office to the existing public records law beginning Jan. 7, 2027.

Foster called that provision significant, noting governors have long claimed exemption from the law following a 1997 court ruling.

Gov. Maura Healey said during her campaign that she would not claim the exemption, but her administration has continued to do so.

DiZoglio, however, argued the process itself undercut the transparency claims being made by supporters.

“They didn’t even speak to the auditor’s office about this proposed change to the auditor’s office’s governing statute,” she said. “They didn’t hold a public hearing. They’re just releasing this today” ahead of a vote the following day.

The House plans to take up the bill Wednesday. Whether senators embrace the House’s effort to redefine the voter-approved audit law — or chart a different course — could determine the future of one of the most contentious political fights on Beacon Hill since voters overwhelmingly approved legislative audits in 2024.

Sam Drysdale is a reporter for State House News Service and State Affairs Pro Massachusetts. Reach her at sdrysdale@statehousenews.com.