The initiative petition seeking to reform the distribution of legislative stipends in Massachusetts will not advance to the ballot following a recent ruling by state authorities that deemed the measure unconstitutional. Assistant Attorney General Anne Sterman informed Secretary of State William Galvin on Tuesday that the petition “may proceed no further in the Article 48 process,” referring to the section of the state constitution that regulates voter-initiated measures and their eligibility for the ballot.

The dispute centers on a proposal aiming to change how legislative leaders allocate assignment-related stipends to certain lawmakers. The measure would impose limits tied to a percentage of a legislative leader’s base salary—currently $82,044—and significantly reduce the total amount paid in stipends, with some leaders facing cuts exceeding tens of thousands of dollars. Proponents argue the reform would enhance democratic accountability and curb what they describe as a system rewarding loyalty to party leadership. Conversely, some lawmakers have vehemently opposed this characterization.

Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an advisory opinion expressing concerns that the measure effectively constitutes an internal legislative rule change, which exceeds the constitutional scope allowed for ballot initiatives. The court’s justices emphasized that the proposed reforms intrude upon the legislature’s internal processes, areas typically outside the purview of voter-initiated questions.

This latest development reverses the Attorney General’s office’s initial certification in August 2025, when the petition was deemed “in proper form for submission to the people.” Sterman’s letter clarified that this certification was contingent upon the petition proposing a law rather than a legislative procedural rule. The shift followed the court’s advisory opinion, which was sought by the state senate amid its opposition to the measure.

Supporters of the initiative have maintained that the advisory opinion is non-binding and do not accept it as a final ruling. John Lippitt, chair of the proponent committee, said last week the group “respectfully but firmly” disagrees with the justices and plans to continue pursuing the ballot question ahead of the November election. Treasurer Jennifer Nassour echoed this sentiment, asserting that the issue should be presented to voters.

Initially, Secretary of State William Galvin’s office had indicated that petitioners could still request papers to collect final signature rounds necessary for ballot access. However, following the Attorney General’s letter on Tuesday, that stance changed. Deb O’Malley, spokesperson for Galvin, noted that without certification from the Attorney General’s office, the secretary cannot distribute additional petition forms.

In response, the committee behind the ballot question accused the legislature of employing a “backdoor maneuver” to obstruct voter participation in the stipend reform effort. Their statement criticized the senate’s request for the advisory opinion as an infrequently used legal step exclusive to the legislature and described the opinion as advisory and non-binding, asserting it should not be used to block the initiative.

The committee also pledged to return in the 2028 election cycle with a proposal seeking to eliminate stipends entirely, marking a continued push for changes to the current system despite the legal setback.