Massachusetts public records expansion faces potential legislative resistance

Massachusetts voters will decide next week whether to expand the state's public records law to cover the Legislature and governor's office, currently exempt from disclosure requirements that apply to municipal officials and other agencies.

Question 1 would end those exemptions, potentially giving residents access to records on lobbying meetings, settlement agreements, and administrative documents from state lawmakers and the governor. The measure has drawn support from transparency advocates and journalists, including the Boston Globe's Editorial Board, but some legislators have expressed concerns about the scope of the law and have suggested they may seek to limit it if voters approve the ballot question.

Massachusetts ranks among the least transparent states in the country. The Society of Professional Journalists awarded Massachusetts the Black Hole Award earlier this year for a "troubling lack of transparency and disregard for the public's right to know." Only three other states allow lawmakers to be exempt from any public records law.

State Auditor Diana Dizoglio is leading the campaign for Question 1. She said the expansion would fulfill a mission beyond a separate 2024 ballot audit that voters approved with 72 percent support but which lawmakers have been slow to implement. "I've learned how the audit can play a role in increasing transparency — but it's going to take much more than an audit," Dizoglio said. "It's going to take opening up the doors on Beacon Hill and letting the everyday families in our communities actually get access to the records that they pay for directly."

Question 1 contains exemptions for certain records, including requests for assistance with government benefits and documents related to developing policy positions. However, some lawmakers contend the exemptions are insufficient. Earlier this year, the Senate and House began drafting their own bills to expand public records access, which would limit retroactive requests to records created after January 2027.

Dizoglio has spent $100,000 of her own campaign funds supporting the measure and has accused legislative leaders of seeking to undermine it. "It is public corruption," she said of the competing legislative efforts. "It's violation of law and it's willful ignorance of the electorate."

Rep. Lindsey Sabadosa, D-Northampton, told The Shoestring she supports expanding public records access but has concerns about how broad the measure is written. She said the implementation depends on how lawmakers interpret the law and that the current language lacks guardrails to protect constituent emails and communications from people in vulnerable situations. "If it were to be a broad and sweeping measure, then she said she would agree with the arguments that her peers have been making against the passing of the ballot question," according to The Shoestring.

Sen. Ryan Fattman, a Republican who backs both the audit and the records expansion, said transparency in the legislative process would build public confidence. "Because there's not a lot of transparency, people come up with conspiracies," Fattman said. "This is a way to temper that and to create confidence in the ways laws are made, and the way that public officials do business."

Speaker Karen Spilka did not respond to requests for an interview. A spokesperson for the attorney general's office said the attorney general supports the measure. Several legislators, including Sen. Brendan Crighton, Sen. Paul Feeney, and Rep. David Vieira, have expressed opposition to Question 1, though no formal "no" campaign has been organized.