NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound
volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
SJC-12064
STEPHANIE GRAY & others1 vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL & another.2
Suffolk. May 2, 2016. - July 1, 2016.
Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, &
Hines, JJ.
Initiative. Constitutional Law, Initiative petition. Attorney
General. Education, Standards.
Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for
the county of Suffolk on January 22, 2016.
The case was reported by Cordy, J.
Thaddeus A. Heuer (Andrew M. London with him) for the
plaintiffs.
Juliana deHaan Rice, Assistant Attorney General (Michael B.
Firestone, Assistant Attorney General, with her) for the
defendants.
BOTSFORD, J. The Attorney General has certified an
initiative petition that concerns, and seeks to end, the use of
1
Robert Antonucci, Bill Walczak, Dianne Kelly, B. John
Dill, Kalimah Rahim, April West, Beverly Holmes, Jacinthe
Albani, and Vanessa Calderon-Rosado.
2
Secretary of the Commonwealth.
2
the Common Core State Standards (common core standards) in
defining the educational curriculum of publicly funded
elementary and secondary students in the Commonwealth. The
petition also concerns the standardized testing process used in
Massachusetts school districts: it would require the
Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education
(commissioner) to publicly release each year all of the
questions and other "test items" included in the prior year's
comprehensive assessment tests that all publicly funded students
in elementary and secondary schools are required to take. The
plaintiffs, a group of Massachusetts voters, challenge the
Attorney General's certification of the petition and seek to
enjoin the Secretary of the Commonwealth (Secretary) from
placing the proposed measure on the 2016 Statewide ballot on a
number of grounds. We conclude, as the plaintiffs argue, that
the Attorney General's certification of Initiative Petition 15-
12 did not comply with art. 48, The Initiative, II, § 3, of the
Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution because it contains
provisions that are not related or mutually dependent.3 It is
therefore unnecessary to consider the plaintiffs' other
challenges.
3
All references in this opinion to art. 48, The Initiative,
II, § 3, of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution
refer to art. 48 as amended by art. 74 of those amendments.
3
1. Background.4 The common core standards were developed
in 2009 as part of a State-led initiative that included
governors and commissioners of education from forty-eight
States, two territories, and the District of Columbia working as
members of the National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. The
purpose of the initiative was to create consistent learning
goals to ensure that all students graduate from high school with
the requisite preparation for "college, career, and life." See
Development Process, Common Core State Standards Initiative,
http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-
process/ [https://perma.cc/ULU2-CG62]. The common core
standards define learning objectives for each elementary and
secondary school grade level through the final year of high
school, with the goal that every student will be able to meet
expectations for what every child should know by the time he or
she graduates from high school. See Frequently Asked Questions,
Common Core State Standards Initiative,
http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/FAQ.pdf
[https://perma.cc/W3VR-PQLN].
On July 21, 2010, the Board of Elementary and Secondary
Education (board) voted, pursuant to its authority under G. L.
4
The facts are taken from the statement of agreed facts and
exhibits submitted by the parties pursuant to the single
justice's reservation and report.
4
c. 69, §§ 1D and 1E, to adopt the common core standards and
replace the then-current Massachusetts curriculum frameworks in
English language arts and mathematics; the vote to adopt was
contingent on "augmenting and customizing" the common core
standards "within the [fifteen] percent allowance"5 for State-
specific content (July vote). The board directed the
commissioner to present recommendations for modifying and
augmenting the common core standards with State-specific content
within the permissible fifteen per cent range no later than
October, 2010, after which the commissioner was to solicit
public comment. The commissioner also was directed to propose
to the board a final version of the standards, including State-
specific content, and upon the board's approval, they would
become the new "Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks for English
Language Arts and Mathematics." On December 21, 2010, following
a public comment period, the board voted unanimously to adopt
the proposed new "Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English
Language Arts and Literacy, Incorporating the Common Core State
Standards," and the proposed new "Massachusetts Curriculum
5
If a State, through an authorized governmental entity
(here, the board) adopts the Common Core State Standards (common
core standards), the State has agreed that they will account for
eighty-five per cent of the total number of standards in a
particular subject area, which provides the State with the
option to adopt up to fifteen per cent in additional standards.
See State Adoption of the Common Core State Standards: the 15
Percent Rule, at 1 (Mar. 2012), available at http://files.eric.
ed.gov/fulltext/ED544664.pdf [https://perma.cc/2UFD-NKVX].
5
Framework for Mathematics, Incorporating the Common Core State
Standards" (December vote).
On or before August 5, 2015, sixteen qualified voters
(petitioners) submitted Initiative Petition 15-12 to the
Attorney General. On September 2, 2015, the Attorney General
certified to the Secretary that the petition is in the proper
form and meets the requirements of art. 48; that the measure is
not substantially the same as any measure that had been
qualified for submission to the people at either of the two
preceding biennial State elections; and that the initiative
petition contains only subjects that are related or mutually
dependent and which are not excluded from the initiative process
pursuant to art. 48, The Initiative, II, § 2. The Attorney
General also prepared a summary of the initiative petition to be
used in the process for gathering additional signatures, and
provided the summary to the Secretary. On or before December 2,
2015, the petitioners submitted to the Secretary forms
containing sufficient additional signatures to require that the
Secretary transmit the petition to the Legislature. The
Secretary then transmitted the petition to the Clerk of the
House of Representatives, and the petition was assigned bill No.
H.3929, entitled "An Act relative to ending common core
education standards." The Legislature has not enacted the
measure that the petition proposes. If the petitioners submit
6
the requisite number of signatures to the Secretary by July 6,
2016, the Secretary intends to include the petition in the
Information for Voters Guide and to include the substance of the
proposed measure on the November, 2016, ballot.
On January 22, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their complaint
in the county court, seeking relief in the nature of certiorari
and mandamus; specifically, they seek to quash the certification
of the petition and to enjoin the Secretary from including the
substance of the proposed measure on the November, 2016,
Statewide ballot. After the parties filed a statement of agreed
facts, the single justice reserved and reported the case for
consideration by the full court.
The petition contains six sections.6 Section 1 would
rescind the board's July vote to adopt, contingently, the common
core standards, and would immediately "restore" the
Massachusetts curriculum frameworks in English language arts and
mathematics that were in effect prior to July 21, 2010. Section
2 of the petition would amend the second paragraph of G. L.
c. 69, § 1D (§ 1D),7 to require that (1) the board include, in
6
The full text of Initiative Petition 15-12 is set forth in
the Appendix to this opinion.
7
The second paragraph of G. L. c. 69, § 1D (§ 1D), as
currently in effect, provides:
"The board shall direct the commissioner to institute
a process to develop academic standards for the core
7
the process for developing academic standards, committees
comprised of "teachers and academics" from Massachusetts public
and private colleges and universities; and (2) the commissioner
copyright the "frameworks," granting permission for use only for
noncommercial, educational uses.
Section 3 of the petition would further amend the second
paragraph of § 1D by adding a provision that would (1) require
the board to create three review committees -- one for
mathematics, one for science and technology, and one for English
-- with the members of each committee to be appointed by the
Governor from public and private research universities in
Massachusetts; and (2) prohibit the board from approving any
"frameworks" unless the pertinent review committee "warrant[s]
subjects of mathematics, science and technology, history
and social science, English, foreign languages and the
arts. The standards shall cover grades kindergarten
through twelve and shall clearly set forth the skills,
competencies and knowledge expected to be possessed by all
students at the conclusion of individual grades or clusters
of grades. The standards shall be formulated so as to set
high expectations of student performance and to provide
clear and specific examples that embody and reflect these
high expectations, and shall be constructed with due regard
to the work and recommendations of national organizations,
to the best of similar efforts in other states, and to the
level of skills, competencies and knowledge possessed by
typical students in the most educationally advanced
nations. The skills, competencies and knowledge set forth
in the standards shall be expressed in terms which lend
themselves to objective measurement, define the performance
outcomes expected of both students directly entering the
workforce and of students pursuing higher education, and
facilitate comparisons with students of other states and
other nations."
8
by a two-thirds vote that the frameworks are equivalent to the
standards of the most educationally advanced nations as
determined by the Trends in Mathematics and Sciences Study."8
Section 4 of the petition would amend the third paragraph
of G. L. c. 69, § 1I (§ 1I),9 to require, with respect to the
8
The Trends in International Mathematics and Sciences Study
(TIMSS) is a series of international assessments of the
mathematics and science knowledge of students in several
countries. The National Center for Education Statistics of the
United States Department of Education administers the TIMSS in
the United States. See Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Statistics, Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Overview,
http://nces.ed.gov/timss/ [https://perma.cc/7D5S-FEPC].
Although section 3 of the initiative petition does not include
the word "international," we assume that the petition intends to
refer to TIMSS as the proposed benchmark for academic standards.
9
General Laws c. 69, § 1I (§ 1I), provides in relevant
part:
"The board shall adopt a system for evaluating on an
annual basis the performance of both public school
districts and individual public schools. . . .
"The system shall be designed both to measure outcomes
and results regarding student performance, and to improve
the effectiveness of curriculum and instruction. In its
design and application, the system shall strike a balance
among considerations of accuracy, fairness, expense and
administration. The system shall employ a variety of
assessment instruments on either a comprehensive or
statistically valid sampling basis. Such instruments shall
be criterion referenced, assessing whether students are
meeting the academic standards described in this
chapter. . . . Such instruments shall provide the means to
compare student performance among the various school
systems and communities in the commonwealth, and between
students in other states and in other nations, especially
those nations which compete with the commonwealth for
employment and economic opportunities. . . .
9
comprehensive diagnostic assessments of individual students
conducted on an annual basis,10 the annual release, before the
start of each school year, of all of the previous academic
year's test items, including all test questions, all constructed
responses, and all essays, for each grade in which the
diagnostic assessment tests were administered and for each
subject tested, "[i]n order to better inform the teachers and
administrators about the diagnostic assessments."11
"In addition, comprehensive diagnostic assessment of
individual students shall be conducted at least in the
fourth, eighth and tenth grades. Said diagnostic
assessments shall identify academic achievement levels of
all students in order to inform teachers, parents,
administrators and the students themselves, as to
individual academic performance. The board shall develop
procedures for updating, improving or refining the
assessment system."
10
The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)
test qualifies as a "comprehensive diagnostic assessment" and is
"used as the high school competency determination, or graduation
requirement." Student No. 9 v. Board of Educ., 440 Mass. 752,
759 (2004). The MCAS test was administered initially in 1998,
and, beginning with the graduating class of 2003, high school
students must achieve a set minimum scaled score on the English
language arts and mathematics grade 10 MCAS test as a graduation
requirement. Id.
11
The final sections of the initiative petition provide
that "the several provisions of this Act" are independent and
severable (section 5), and that "[t]his Act" is to take effect
"immediately upon coming law" (section 6). We do not discuss
either of these sections further except to note that the
severability provision in section 5 is part of the measure
proposed in the petition, and would only be operative if enacted
into law. This severability provision does not authorize this
10
The plaintiffs allege in their complaint that Initiative
Petition 15-12 was improperly certified by the Attorney General
because the petition does not comply with art. 48 in several
respects. In particular, the plaintiffs claim that (1) the
petition contains subjects that are neither related nor mutually
dependent in violation of art. 48, The Initiative, II, § 3; (2)
the petition does not propose a "law" as required by art. 48,
The Initiative, II, § 1, insofar as it proposes to rescind the
board's July vote, a vote that had no operative effect because
final board approval of the common core standards did not occur
until the December vote; and (3) it does not include the
requisite enacting language prescribed by G. L. c. 4, § 3.
2. Discussion.12 a. Standard of review. A challenge to
the decision by the Attorney General to certify an initiative
petition is reviewed de novo. See Abdow v. Attorney Gen., 468
Mass. 478, 487 (2014). See also Opinion of the Justices, 262
Mass. 603, 606 (1928) ("The certificate of the Attorney General
court to approve the Attorney General's certification of some
sections of Initiative Petition 15-12 while disapproving others.
12
In Bogertman v. Attorney Gen., 474 Mass. 607, 610-612
(2016), we summarized the process and standards for enactment of
a measure by popular initiative petition and the duty of the
Attorney General under art. 48, The Initiative, II, § 3, to
review and certify that the petition meets the criteria set
forth in art. 48, The Initiative, II, §§ 1-2. There is no need
to repeat the discussion in this case, but it provides the
necessary framework for our consideration of the plaintiffs'
challenges to the initiative petition before us here.
11
concerns merely matters of form. . . . Whatever fails to
possess elements indispensable for enactment or for submission
to the people cannot be made into a 'law' by such certificate").
In conducting our review, we bear in mind "the firmly
established principle that art. 48 is to be construed to support
the people's prerogative to initiate and adopt laws." Carney v.
Attorney Gen., 451 Mass. 803, 814 (2008) (Carney II), quoting
Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 403
Mass. 203, 211 (1988).
b. Relatedness. Pursuant to art. 48, The Initiative, II,
§ 3, the Attorney General may only certify petitions that
contain subjects "which are related or which are mutually
dependent" (related subjects requirement). The plaintiffs argue
that the petition does not comply with this requirement. We
agree. In Carney v. Attorney Gen., 447 Mass. 218, 225-232
(2006) (Carney I), the court, informed by review of the
proceedings of the State Constitutional Convention of 1917-1918,
summarized the purpose of the related subjects requirement. We
stated:
"The relatedness limitation requires the Attorney
General to scrutinize the aggregation of laws proposed in
the initiative petition for its impact at the polls. At
some high level of abstraction, any two laws may be said to
share a 'common purpose.' The salient inquiry is: Do the
similarities of an initiative's provisions dominate what
each segment provides separately so that the petition is
sufficiently coherent to be voted on 'yes' or 'no' by the
voters?
12
". . .
"The language, structure, and history of art. 48 all
suggest that any initiative presenting multiple subjects
may not operate to deprive the people of a 'meaningful way'
to express their will. . . . It is not enough that the
provisions in an initiative petition all 'relate' to some
same broad topic at some conceivable level of
abstraction. . . . To clear the relatedness hurdle, the
initiative petition must express an operational relatedness
among its substantive parts that would permit a reasonable
voter to affirm or reject the entire petition as a unified
statement of public policy. A broader interpretation of
the common purpose requirement would undercut the very
foundations of the relatedness limitation." (Emphases
added; citations omitted.)
Id. at 226, 230-231. See Abdow, 468 Mass. at 499.13 See also
Albano v. Attorney Gen., 437 Mass. 156, 161 (2002); Mazzone v.
13
Abdow v. Attorney Gen., 468 Mass. 478, 499 (2014), also
discusses the related subjects requirement. We stated:
"The decisions of this court illustrate how we have
endeavored to construe the related subjects requirement in
a balanced manner that fairly accommodates both the
interests of initiative petitioners and the interests of
those who would ultimately vote on the petition. On the
one hand, the requirement must not be construed so narrowly
as to frustrate the ability of voters to use the popular
initiative as 'the people's process' to bring important
matters of concern directly to the electorate; the
delegates to the constitutional convention that approved
art. 48 did, after all, permit more than one subject to be
included in a petition, and we ought not be so restrictive
in the definition of relatedness that we effectively
eliminate that possibility and confine each petition to a
single subject. . . . On the other hand, relatedness
cannot be defined so broadly that it allows the inclusion
in a single petition of two or more subjects that have only
a marginal relationship to one another, which might confuse
or mislead voters, or which could place them in the
untenable position of casting a single vote on two or more
dissimilar subjects."
13
Attorney Gen., 432 Mass. 515, 528-529 (2000); Massachusetts
Teachers Ass'n v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 384 Mass. 209,
219-220 (1981); Opinion of the Justices, 309 Mass. 555, 560-561
(1941).
These cases indicate that at the core of the related
subjects requirement is the condition that the initiative
petition's provisions share a "common purpose," see
Massachusetts Teachers Ass'n, 384 Mass. at 219-220;14 put
slightly differently but making the same point, the petition's
provisions, considered together, must present a "unified
statement of public policy" that the voters can accept or reject
as a whole. See Carney I, 447 Mass. at 231.
Id.
14
See also Abdow, 468 Mass. at 501-504 (common purpose
found where petition's provisions all related to limiting scope
of permissible gambling in Commonwealth); Albano v. Attorney
Gen., 437 Mass. 156, 161-162 (2002) (common purpose found where
constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would result
in uniform application to several different statutes); Mazzone
v. Attorney Gen., 432 Mass. 515, 528-529 (2000) (common purpose
found where "provisions of the petition relate directly or
indirectly to expanding the scope of the Commonwealth's drug
treatment programs and . . . 'fairly' funding those programs");
Massachusetts Teachers Ass'n v. Secretary of the Commonwealth,
384 Mass. 209, 218-221 (1981) (related subjects requirement met
where provisions of petition all related directly or indirectly
to limitation of taxes); Opinion of the Justices, 309 Mass. 555,
560-561 (1941) (where general subject of proposed law was
prevention of pregnancy or conception, provisions seeking to
provide for "treatment or prescription given to married person,"
"teaching in chartered medical schools," and "publication or
sale of medical treatises or journals" deemed related as sharing
common purpose).
14
In two cases, we have concluded that the provisions
contained in a particular initiative petition do not share a
common purpose or reflect a uniform statement of public policy,
and, therefore, did not satisfy the related subjects
requirement. In Opinion of the Justices, 422 Mass. 1212, 1213,
1220-1221 (1996), in response to questions propounded by the
House of Representatives, we considered an initiative petition
that included several provisions designed to reduce and limit
compensation paid to Massachusetts legislators and also one that
would permit the Inspector General to access the records of the
General Court and records kept by the commissioner of veterans'
services. One of the questions posed to the court was whether
the provision relating to the records of the commissioner of
veterans' services was sufficiently related to a subject to
which the initiative petition's other provisions also related.
The petition's drafters asserted that the common purpose among
the provisions was "to make Massachusetts government more
accountable to the people"; counsel to the House of
Representatives proposed that the common purpose might be
legislative accountability. Id. at 1220. We determined that
the common purpose asserted by the drafters was "unacceptably
broad," given that "[o]ne could imagine a multitude of diverse
subjects all of which would 'relate' to making government more
accountable to the people." Id. at 1221. We accepted the
15
alternative proposed purpose of legislative accountability as
reflecting a common purpose that also was consistent with the
title of the initiative petition at issue, but concluded that
"[p]ermitting the Inspector General access to the records of the
commissioner of veterans' services does not relate in any
meaningful way to improving legislative accountability." Id.
Accordingly, because these provisions were not "related or
mutually dependent," the initiative petition did not satisfy the
related subjects requirement. Id.
In the second case, Carney I, the petition proposed to (1)
amend certain criminal statutes to punish those who abused or
neglected dogs, and (2) ban parimutuel dog racing. Carney I,
447 Mass. at 219-220 & n.7. We rejected as too broad the
Attorney General's argument that these were sufficiently related
subjects based on a mutual connection to the goal of promoting
more humane treatment of dogs, see id. at 224, and concluded
that these provisions lacked a sufficient "operational
relationship" between them to permit a reasoned vote on a
uniform public policy question. See id. at 231-232. In that
regard, we observed:
"The voter who favors increasing criminal penalties
for animal abuse should be permitted to register that clear
preference without also being required to favor eliminating
parimutuel dog racing. Conversely, the voter who thinks
that the criminal penalties for animal abuse statutes are
strong enough should not be required to vote in favor of
16
extending the reach of our criminal laws because he favors
abolishing parimutuel dog racing."
Id. at 231. As a result, the related subjects requirement was
not satisfied and the Attorney General's certification of the
petition did not comply with art. 48. Id. at 231-232.
With this background in mind, we turn to Initiative
Petition 15-12. Sections 1 through 3 may be said to share a
common purpose: redefining the contents of the academic
standards and curriculum frameworks for the Commonwealth's
public schools. Section 4, however, which would amend § 1I to
require annual publication of all the previous year's questions,
constructed responses, and essays for each grade and core
subject included in the mandatory diagnostic assessment tests,
has the explicitly stated purpose of better informing educators
about the assessment tests. Thus, the apparent goal of section
4 is to make more transparent the standardized diagnostic
assessment tests and testing process required to be used in
public education, and it is a goal that comes with a significant
price tag: as the Attorney General agreed in oral argument
before this court, implementing section 4 will require the
development and creation of a completely new comprehensive
diagnostic test every year, which means a substantial increase
in annual expense for the board -- an expense to be borne by
17
taxpayers and to be weighed by voters in determining whether
increased transparency is worth the cost.15
An initiative petition properly may contain only subjects
"which are related or which are mutually dependent." Art. 48,
The Initiative, II, § 3. The two subjects in this petition are
clearly not "mutually dependent." In fact, the opposite seems
true. That is, whether the diagnostic assessment tests are
based on the common core standards or some previous set of
academic standards -- the focus of sections 1 through 3 of the
petition -- will not affect in any way the commissioner's
obligation under section 4 to release before the start of every
school year all of the previous year's test items in order to
inform educators about the testing process; the commissioner's
obligation will exist independently of the specific curriculum
content on which the tests are based.
15
The diagnostic assessment tests currently are embodied
not only in the MCAS tests, see note 10, supra, but also in the
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers
(PARCC) assessment tests currently administered as diagnostic
assessments in some Massachusetts school districts. See
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education,
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers,
http://www.doe.mass.edu/parcc/ [https://perma.cc/56H8-X85Y].
The record does not contain any information concerning whether
there are legal constraints that would limit the commissioner's
ability to publish information about the PARCC assessment tests,
given that these tests are created and published by an entity
that is independent of the board and the Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education. See http://www.parcconline.
org/about/parcc-inc [https://perma.cc/Q83Y-T6ZY].
18
Nor do the two subjects have sufficient operational
connection, see Carney I, 447 Mass. at 230-231, to be "related"
within the meaning of art. 48. The Attorney General argues that
sections 1 through 3 are "operationally related" to section 4 in
that all four sections serve a common purpose of imposing "new
procedural requirements on the development and implementation of
educational standards," and because "the twin educational facets
of curriculum and assessment are inextricably coupled:
assessments exist to measure the extent to which students are
learning and schools are teaching the material, concepts, and
strategies set forth in the academic standards." We agree that
at a conceptual level, curriculum content and assessment are
interconnected, but the related subjects requirement is not
satisfied by a conceptual or abstract bond. See Carney I, supra
at 230-231. At the operational level, this petition joins a
proposed policy of rejecting a particular set of curriculum
standards, common core, with a proposed policy of increasing
transparency in the standardized testing process at what is
likely to be a greatly increased cost, regardless of the content
of the curriculum standards used. These are two separate public
policy issues.
There is significant public debate in Massachusetts and the
nation about the value of the common core standards; there is
also a great deal of debate about the value of standardized
19
testing.16 That both may be controversial public issues in the
domain of elementary and secondary education, however, does not,
by itself, bring them within the related subjects requirement of
art. 48, The Initiative, II, § 3. The combination of these two
issues in one initiative petition does not offer the voters a
"unified statement of public policy" (emphasis added). See
Carney I, 447 Mass. at 231. In other words, we cannot say that
"the similarities of [the petition's] provisions dominate what
each [provision] provides separately" so that the petition,
considered as a whole, "is sufficiently coherent to be voted on
'yes' or 'no' by the voters." Id. at 226. Rather, because the
issues combined in the petition are substantively distinct, it
is more likely that voters would be in the "untenable position
of casting a single vote on two or more dissimilar subjects,"
Abdow, 468 Mass. at 499, which is the specific misuse of the
initiative process that the related subjects requirement was
intended to avoid. See Carney I, supra at 229-231.
Our conclusion that Initiative Petition 15-12 fails to
satisfy the related subjects requirement of art. 48 will prevent
the proposed measure in the petition from being placed on the
2016 Statewide ballot. Because this is so, we need not consider
the plaintiffs' additional claims that the petition fails to
16
See If the MCAS Is So Good, Why Are We Ditching It?,
Boston Globe Magazine, June 12, 2016; Leaked Questions Rekindle
Debate Over Common Core Tests, N.Y. Times, May 24, 2016.
20
propose a "law," see art. 48, The Initiative, II, § 1, and that
the necessary enacting language required by G. L. c. 4, § 3, is
absent.
3. Conclusion. We remand the case to the county court for
entry of a judgment declaring that the Attorney General's
certification of Initiative Petition 15-12 is not in compliance
with the limitations of art. 48 and enjoining the Secretary from
taking steps to place the measure on the ballot in the 2016
Statewide election.
So ordered.
Appendix.
Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to Ending Common Core
Education Standards
"Be it enacted by the people and their authority:
"SECTION 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or
special law to the contrary, the vote taken by the Massachusetts
Board of Elementary and Secondary Education on July 21, 2010, to
adopt the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics and
English Language Arts is hereby rescinded. The curriculum
frameworks in Mathematics and English Language Arts that were in
effect prior to that date are hereby restored.
"SECTION 2. Section 1D of Chapter 69 is hereby amended in the
second paragraph by inserting after the first sentence, the
following new sentences:
The process shall include committees made up exclusively of
public school teachers and academics from private and
public colleges and universities established and operated
in Massachusetts. The commissioner shall copyright the
frameworks, which shall be wholly owned by the department;
permission shall be granted to copy any or all parts of
these frameworks for non-commercial educational purposes.
"SECTION 3. Said section 1D of chapter 69 is hereby further
amended in the second paragraph by inserting after the third
sentence the following new sentences:
There shall be three review committees, one for each
discipline of math, science and technology and English.
Each review committee shall have three members appointed by
the governor who shall choose said members from private or
public research universities established and operated in
Massachusetts for each of the disciplines. For the
purposes of this section, a 'research university' is any
university that awards doctoral degrees in the arts and
sciences. Each review committee shall warrant by a two-
thirds vote that the frameworks are equivalent to the
standards of the most educationally advanced nations as
determined by the Trends in Mathematics and Sciences Study.
2
No framework shall be approved by the board without such a
warrant.
"SECTION 4. Section 1I of Chapter 69 is hereby amended in the
third paragraph by inserting after the second sentence, the
following new sentence:
In order to better inform the teachers and administrators
about the diagnostic assessments, after the administration
of the assessments but before the start of the new school
year, the commissioner shall release all of the test items,
including questions, constructed responses and essays, for
each grade and every subject.
"SECTION 5. The several provisions of this Act are independent
and severable and the invalidity, if any, of any part or feature
thereof shall not affect or render the remainder of the Act
invalid or inoperative.
"SECTION 6. This act shall take effect immediately upon
becoming law."