Honor the Ballot: Let the Audit Proceed

Dear friends: I write to draw attention to a likely little-known, but important political tension unfolding in Boston right now over the legality of an audit of the state legislature. The office of the State Auditor is a statewide (Commonwealth-wide) elected position that usually flies under the radar—though not at the moment. Ballot measures are one tool Massachusetts residents have in their wheelhouse to shape statewide elections (and sometimes local ones, too), and the Commonwealth has a long history of organizing around them, for and against. That history matters here because the authority of ballot-measure outcomes is now being tested in real time by the Attorney General and the leadership of the state legislature — and it’s worth paying attention.

In Nov. 2024, Massachusetts voters approved Question 1, a statewide ballot measure which would give the state auditor authority to conduct an audit of the state legislature. The measure passed with nearly 72% support, making the outcome a clear mandate. Despite this, there is currently an ensuing standoff between the auditor’s office, state legislative leadership, and the attorney general’s office over the legality of an audit. This standoff raises a fundamental question that should matter across ideological lines: When residents enact a law through the ballot, do state institutions not have an obligation to implement it soundly and in good faith?

The initiative process—where residents vote directly on ballot measures—exists in 26 states, in part because voters sometimes conclude that state legislatures’ internal incentives won’t produce reform on their own. When a ballot measure passes, it is not guidance, and it is not a survey of public opinion; it is lawmaking through a constitutionally recognized channel. Question 1’s official voter information described its effect plainly, stating that a “yes” vote would specify the auditor’s authority to audit the Legislature. What weakens democratic legitimacy is not the presence of a constitutional dispute, but the use of delay as a substitute for resolution—leaving a law neither implemented nor definitively invalidated. In recent cycles, among other examples, Massachusetts has both legalized recreational marijuana and rejected ranked-choice voting through ballot measures, showing that the Commonwealth takes some electorally supported measures seriously—but selectively resists others.

The most serious objection raised by legislative leaders is based on the separation of powers, claiming that an executive-branch auditor cannot audit a coequal branch without impermissibly intruding on legislative independence. Separation of powers, however, is not a blanket exemption from accountability — it is meant to be a framework for designing limits. A well-scoped audit can focus on administrative operations such as procurement, contracting, internal controls, and spending without prying into protected legislative deliberation. The auditor’s office has framed the contemplated review in operational terms while acknowledging the complexity of legislative materials. The proper institutional response is not to treat the ballot measure as void in practice, but to define guardrails that preserve legitimate privilege while still delivering what voters approved almost two years ago now. 

The personal history of current auditor, Diana DiZoglio, has intensified public interpretation of the conflict and should be addressed directly because it shapes how residents perceive legitimacy. DiZoglio previously served as both a legislative aide and later as a member of the House and Senate, respectively. In 2018, she shared publicly on the House floor that she had faced harassment as a legislative aide, was fired, and signed a severance agreement containing a non-disclosure provision that prohibited her from speaking about the allegations. She maintains that she chose to break that nondisclosure agreement (NDA) and accept whatever came of it to draw attention to the issue of silencing voices. I see that as not a minor biographical detail — but rather why some observers interpret the audit fight as a personal vendetta and a long-running dispute with Beacon Hill’s culture and leadership.

That interpretation is understandable, but it is not dispositive. Motive is not the legal standard voters were asked to apply, and it should not become the standard by which institutions decide whether to respect the ballot. Even if a segment of the public believes that personal experience fuels DiZoglio’s urgency, the question on the ballot was not whether the auditor’s intent was pure. The question was whether the Commonwealth’s residents want the Legislature to be auditable, as most other entities working with or for the state government essentially are. The electorate answered yes by an overwhelming margin. In a democratic system, institutions should not get to condition compliance on their assumptions about an officeholder’s psychology, primarily when the public has already spoken through law.

The present impasse has persisted because enforcement requires coordination among offices with competing views of authority. Legislative leaders have refused to participate on separation-of-powers grounds. At the same time, the auditor has sought ways to compel compliance, and the attorney general’s office has continued to insist it needs additional information before proceeding. The attorney general’s institutional duty is to move the dispute toward adjudication and clarity rather than allow the ballot result to dissolve into procedural fog. It is very upsetting that our current attorney general, Andrea Campbell, who I know has championed transparency and equity her whole political career, is playing a role in this delay. I do hope she will reconsider and this is a direct call on her to step out of the way. 

The question remains of why this matters to Amherst College students beyond general civic concern. Amherst students live inside a state political system that directly shapes our higher education experience through policy, appropriations, regulatory authority, and the broader climate of public trust that determines what reforms become possible, or what funds become freed up for higher education. Massachusetts residents, including students who vote or reside here, even temporarily, have a stake in whether democratic mandates actually translate into governance. If the state can treat a 72% ballot outcome as negotiable, students should expect similar patterns whenever public demands threaten entrenched power, whether the topic is budgets, housing, transit, labor protections, public health, or arguably most importantly to us, education. 

It also matters because the Legislature is not an abstract institution. It decides rules that shape student life indirectly and directly, from the economic pressures families face to the public systems Amherst students rely on while studying and organizing in the Commonwealth — all the way to state pell grants. Students who see themselves as future engagers in the work of civic, social, and political life should recognize that democratic backsliding often looks banal and occurs under leaders in both “parties.” It looks like delay, jurisdictional dodging, and procedural disputes that outlast public attention and momentum. That has always been the game, my friends, and it is about outlasting them. A legislature that claims a unique exemption from routine scrutiny teaches us a civic lesson that is difficult to unlearn — that accountability stops right where power begins.

This moment should serve as a case study on how governments attempt to stall the will of ordinary people, not always by overturning elections, but by slowing implementation until the mandate loses force. That pattern is resisted not only in courtrooms, but through sustained civic activism, and I am glad to know that the current auditor does not intend to back down. Students can participate in this insistence through ordinary, lawful mechanisms, including writing to the attorney general’s office to call for timely, good-faith steps that advance Question 1 toward implementation. Students can also contact regional state representatives and senators and ask them to encourage legislative leadership to cooperate so the electorate’s directive is not diluted any further. Civic pressure is most legitimate when it is specific and oriented toward process rather than personality. The request is simple: Honor the ballot, and let the audit proceed. Unless there is something to hide?