They Called It Transparency. The Voters Should Look Again.

To the Editor,

In 2024, Massachusetts voters did more than express an opinion.
They made a law.
Through the initiative process established by Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, voters gave the independently elected State Auditor authority to audit the Legislature.
The measure became law.
Yet almost two years later, State Auditor Diana DiZoglio is still fighting to carry out the audit voters approved.
Now Beacon Hill is considering legislation with a reassuring title: “An Act Promoting Transparency and Public Access in State Government.”
The House passed H.5469. The Senate passed a different version, and the legislation is now in conference committee.
But voters should look beyond the title.
The House version contains language every Massachusetts taxpayer should know.
When a dispute arises over records or interviews during a legislative audit, H.5469 says:
“No court shall have jurisdiction to compel the production of records, to enforce any interview request or to adjudicate any dispute arising under an audit conducted pursuant to this section.”
Read that again.
"No court shall have jurisdiction".
There are legitimate constitutional questions involving separation of powers and legislative privilege.
The voters cannot use an ordinary initiative law to override the Massachusetts Constitution.  I don't argue otherwise.
But that raises an obvious question:
Who decides when the Auditor has crossed a constitutional line?
It should not simply be the Legislature being audited.
That is what courts are for.
If lawmakers believe a particular document is constitutionally protected, identify it and explain why.
If the Auditor disagrees, let her make her argument.
Then let an independent judiciary decide.
Instead, the House-passed language establishes rules governing legislative audits while expressly saying that no court has jurisdiction to compel records, enforce interview requests or adjudicate disputes arising under those audits.
Imagine your city or town doing that.
An independent auditor arrives and local officials say: You can audit us, but we will establish the boundaries. If we refuse to give you something and you disagree, you cannot ask a judge to decide who is right.
Would you call that an independent audit?
I wouldn't.
I am not coming to this issue only as a candidate for State Representative.
I am a citizen.  I am a taxpayer.  And I am one of the voters whose voice is at stake.
I was also one of the citizen-taxpayer plaintiffs in the John Deaton litigation seeking enforcement of the voter-approved legislative audit, and later filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Judicial Court in DiZoglio v. Mariano.  In April, I filed an amicus brief with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in “DiZoglio v. Mariano” (SJC-13921), in support of State Auditor Diana DiZoglio.
My argument was simple:
A law enacted by the people cannot be allowed to exist only on paper.
In my brief, I argued that a voter-enacted law must be capable of execution, enforcement or defense, and judicial review.
Without those things, a law can remain alive on paper while being nullified in practice.
That is why the language in H.5469 troubles me so much.
The people did not make a request in 2024—they made a law.
That doesn't put the law above the Constitution.  It means that if there is a genuine constitutional dispute, we have a branch of government specifically designed to resolve it.  The judiciary.
There should be two choices: enforce the people's law, or, when there is a legitimate constitutional dispute, adjudicate it.
There should not be a third choice: write new rules governing the audit and close the courthouse door when those rules are challenged.
As I argued in my amicus brief: “A law enacted by the people must be either enforced or adjudicated, but it cannot be ignored.”
Diana DiZoglio is a Democrat.  I am a Republican.  I support her. 

Because transparency isn't Republican.  Accountability isn't Democratic.  And the rule of law doesn't belong to either party.
It belongs to the people.
So pay attention to what emerges from the H.5469 conference committee.
Don't just read the title.  Read the language.  Read the votes.  Then ask your representative:  Did you vote to carry out the independent audit the people enacted into law, or did you vote to let Beacon Hill decide how much of Beacon Hill can be audited without allowing a court to resolve the dispute?
Our representatives don't work for the Speaker;
They don't work for a political party;
They work for us.
The people already voted.
Open the books.  Let the Auditor audit.

Christina Delisio
Republican Candidate for State Representative
5th Essex District