By Chris Van Buskirk | June 18, 2026

Massachusetts voters will not get to decide an explosive political issue this November after the state’s highest court rejected a ballot initiative that would have cut the state income tax rate to 4 percent because of an error by the state’s attorney general in the wording of the proposal’s summary.

The decision quickly shook Beacon Hill, where business groups have argued the cost of living in Massachusetts has become too expensive for residents and businesses, while Democratic legislative leaders and unions warned the tax reduction, if passed, would spell disaster for public services.

In an 18-page ruling, Supreme Judicial Court Justice Serge Georges Jr. wrote that a constitutionally required summary of the ballot question prepared by Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office was not “fair” because it did not inform voters that the question, if passed, would also result in cutting the state’s tax rate on long-term capital gains.

“The summary’s contrary statement is not a minor imprecision. It is significantly misleading and likely to influence voters,” Georges wrote for the court. “… The summary does not merely leave something unsaid. It affirmatively tells voters, in ordinary language, that capital gain income is outside the proposed tax reduction when, under current law, most long-term capital gain income would be affected.”

Sydney Weiser, a spokesperson for Campbell, said the Democrat’s office respects “the SJC’s decision and will continue to work diligently to ensure that ballot initiatives are summarized fairly and transparently.”

The ballot question would have gradually lowered the state’s income tax rate over three years. The idea appeared to be popular among voters: A Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll this week found that 66 percent of those surveyed said they support it, at a time when many feel crushed by the high cost of living and frustrated that their money doesn’t go as far as it once did.

The proposal was backed by the Massachusetts High Technology Council, a trade group representing technology companies; the Massachusetts Competitive Partnership, a group of prominent business leaders; and the Pioneer Institute, a Boston-based libertarian-leaning think tank.

Chris Keohan, a spokesperson for the campaign behind the ballot question, said the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision “underscores the critical importance of accuracy and impartiality in drafting materials intended for the electorate.”

“This decision disenfranchises millions of Massachusetts voters,” Keohan said in a statement. “We’re deeply disappointed that due to the Attorney General’s summary, voters won’t have the opportunity to decide on a measure with significant implications for their finances and for the state’s competitiveness.”

Keohan said the campaign is “exploring next steps,” including trying to resubmit the question for the ballot in two years.

The ballot question did not propose to directly change the state’s long-term capital gains tax rate. Instead, that reduction would have happened indirectly, because in Massachusetts, capital gains taxes are linked to the rate for Part B income, a large category that includes wages as well as interest income. All are currently taxed at 5 percent.

In its summary of the ballot question, Campbell’s office said it would lower tax rates on personal taxable income “other than interest, dividends or capital gain income, such as wages and salaries.”

In court documents, Assistant Attorney General Grace Gohlke had argued the summary was fair because it “neutrally described the main features of the petition without commentary on their possible interaction with existing law not directly amended by the measure.”

Under state law, Campbell is required to issue a “fair, concise summary” of ballot questions to help voters understand what they are deciding.

But an attorney who worked with opponents of the proposed tax cut said Campbell’s summary was “badly flawed.”

“The attorney general’s summary was wrong, and therefore the question can’t appear on the ballot. It’s not rocket science, and it shouldn’t be,” the attorney, David Sullivan, said in an interview.

Lawmakers have cast the proposed reduction in income taxes as a catastrophic blow to public services because it could eventually reduce annual tax collections by as much as $5 billion.

As a precaution, Democrats on Beacon Hill recently passed a series of state-level tax benefits for businesses, but added language that would pause those breaks if voters approved the tax cut. The measure, which Governor Maura Healey signed into law, was viewed as a warning to business leaders behind the proposal.

House Speaker Ron Mariano said in a statement Thursday reducing annual collections by $5 billion “would’ve meant significant cuts to services and programs that Massachusetts residents rely on, while doing little to bolster competitiveness and address the affordability challenges facing the Commonwealth.”

Healey had also opposed the ballot measure, arguing it would be “counterproductive to economic success.

“The court has made its decision,” Healey said Thursday. “What doesn’t change is the need for everyone to focus on driving down costs and making life more affordable for people in Massachusetts.”

The Supreme Judicial Court could further shape what voters see on their November ballot. Justices already allowed one ballot question to move forward that seeks to repeal legalization of recreational cannabis and helped knock another measure out of contention that focused on the leadership stipends many state lawmakers earn.

Two other lawsuits are still pending before the high court targeting ballot questions that would enact rent control and establish an all-party primary system.

The court has blocked others from the ballot in recent years: in 2018 it struck down the first iteration of a proposal for the so-called millionaires’ tax;, and in 2022, it rejected one to reshape how gig economy workers are classified in Massachusetts.

But Thursday’s decision to reject a ballot question because of a flawed summary from the attorney general’s office is rare, as noted by both supporters and opponents.

The court itself relied, in part, on a decision from 1951 that undid a public welfare law approved by voters the prior year because a 40-word summary printed on the ballot to describe the petition was not “fair” and “did not comply with the Constitution,” according to the Globe’s reporting of the ruling at the time.

In documents on the income tax proposal, Georges, the SJC justice, wrote that campaign materials provided by supporters and opponents, as well as the full text of the petition, were “unlikely to cure this kind of error in the attorney general’s neutral summary.”

“The petition itself does not mention capital gain income,” Georges wrote. “A voter reading the petition and the summary together would see a summary that expressly excludes capital gain income and a petition that says nothing to contradict that statement.”

Jim Stergios, executive director of the Pioneer Institute, said the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision “is a serious disappointment for Commonwealth families struggling under one of the highest tax and cost burdens in the nation.”

“Today’s decision means that a technical defect in a summary prepared by the government can prevent voters from considering a question that otherwise qualified for the ballot,” Stergios said.

The business groups behind the tax cut proposal are pushing a separate ballot question that would rewrite the formula for the law that caps the amount of revenue the state can collect each fiscal year before it triggers automatic refunds.

The change, in effect, could make it easier for refunds to flow again, four years after a windfall of tax collections triggered the obscure 1980s-era law and sent $3 billion back to taxpayers.