WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 3066

Communication from the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court on important questions of law relative to legislative stipends (see House No. 5010) [for opinions, see Senate document numbered 3066]

194th Legislature (2025-2026)

It would tie lawmakers’ stipends to internal procedural compliance and committee performance, certified by clerks, but is deemed a rule, not a law.

Read and placed on file
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 3066

Summary of Bill S.3066 (Massachusetts, 194th General Court)

Note: This document conveys the Supreme Judicial Court’s advisory opinion on an initiative petition related to legislative stipends. The opinion addresses whether the proposed measure is a valid law under Art. 48 and explains why the petition is treated as proposing a rule rather than a law.

1) Purpose and intent of the bill (as discussed in the opinion)

  • The bill, identified as House No. 5010 and Senate No. 3066, is an initiative petition titled “An Act to reform and regulate legislative stipends.”
  • Its central aim is to condition a portion of legislators’ stipends on compliance with certain procedural prerequisites and performance goals.
  • Compliance would be certified jointly by the clerks of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

2) Key provisions and changes proposed

  • Legislative stipends (currently governed by G. L. c. 3, § 9B) would be replaced with a framework where stipends for leadership positions are set at specified percentages of base compensation.
  • A portion of stipends would be contingent on:
    • Whether a legislator is on or chairs any “eligible committees.”
    • Whether those committees meet defined performance goals (for chairs and other leadership roles).
  • Eligible committees are defined as those established by joint rules that have referred more than 50 bills before March 1 of the first year of a biennial session.
  • Performance goals for committees include:
    • Holding a public hearing and public markup on each bill referred to the committee by specified dates.
    • Approving all committee reports by a majority vote at a public meeting with a quorum.
  • Compliance monitoring and certification:
    • The clerks of the Senate and House would jointly examine records, certify compliance for eligible committees meeting goals, and calculate the annual “compliance percentage.”
  • Administrative changes:
    • The petition would assign additional duties to the clerks (e.g., examining records, certifying compliance).
  • Overall design:
    • The measure ties compensation to internal procedural outcomes and committee performance, effectively linking pay to internal legislative processes.

3) Affected persons and entities

  • Massachusetts state legislators (both Senate and House members), particularly those in leadership positions and serving on or chairing “eligible committees.”
  • Clerks of the Senate and House of Representatives (as responsible officers for certification and compliance calculations).
  • The general public and proponents of increased transparency in lawmaking, given the emphasis on hearings, public markups, and committee reporting.

4) Procedural and timeline aspects

  • The bill is an initiative petition introduced under Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution (The Initiative, Art. II, § 3, as amended), with the people authorized to enact laws directly via a petition.
  • The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has issued an advisory opinion on two questions: 1) Whether the petition improperly proposes rules (internal procedures) rather than a law, potentially making it invalid under Art. 48. 2) If it were a proper law, whether it would intrude on the Senate’s ability to set its own rules (a constitutional concern).
  • The SJC concluded:
    • The petition would constitute a rule rather than a law because its principal purpose is to regulate internal legislative procedures (through stipends conditioned on procedural compliance and clerks’ monitoring).
    • Because it is framed as a rule, it does not meet the statutory standard for an initiative petition proposing a law, and thus Art. 48 certification as a “proper form for submission” is not met.
  • As a result, the petition is not in proper form to be submitted to voters, and the Senate would not proceed to vote on it.

Bottom-line

  • The initiative proposes to tie legislative stipends to internal procedural compliance and committee performance, with certification by clerks.
  • The Supreme Judicial Court, in its advisory opinion, determined that the petition functions as a rule governing internal legislative procedures, not as a law, and thus is not properly formable under Article 48 for submission to the people.
  • Consequently, the bill, as framed, would not advance as a law via the initiative process.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.