BOSTON – A high-profile push to slash the Massachusetts state income tax has been abruptly derailed after the state’s highest court ruled Thursday morning that voters were being given “significantly misleading” information about the measure.
The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) blocked the proposed initiative from appearing on the November 2026 ballot, agreeing with a legal challenge that the official summary prepared for voters was fundamentally flawed. The court placed the blame squarely on Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office for failing to provide a “fair and accurate” description of the question.
At the heart of the decision was how the proposal—which aimed to gradually roll back the state income tax from 5% to 4%—would actually impact residents’ wallets. While the official summary assured voters that the measure would not affect capital gains income (money made from investments like stocks or real estate), the SJC found the opposite to be true.
Because Massachusetts law ties the long-term capital gains tax rate directly to the standard income tax rate, lowering one would automatically lower the other.
“We agree; the summary misstates the petition’s impact,” the SJC justices wrote in their decision, calling the error more than just a minor oversight. “It is significantly misleading and likely to influence voters.”
The decision sparked swift and furious backlash from fiscal conservatives and tax relief advocates who spent months mobilizing across the state.
“This is a disgraceful outcome for Massachusetts taxpayers and a direct result of the Attorney General’s failure to do her job properly,” said Paul D. Craney, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance.
Craney noted that the decision effectively silences a massive grassroots effort. “More than 100,000 residents signed petitions to put tax relief before the voters. They followed the process, did the work, and earned a place on the ballot. Now, because the Attorney General’s office produced a summary the court found to be significantly misleading, voters are being denied the chance to decide for themselves whether Massachusetts should lower its income tax.”
With the ruling, the justices declared the current summary unconstitutional and officially ordered the Secretary of the Commonwealth to halt any further steps to place the question on the statewide ballot.
This decision falls on the heels of a failed measure to reduce the sales tax from 6.25% to 5% that would not doubt help Norwood families during a financial crisis. As noted in a May article where Representative John Rogers voted against Amendment #1588 to the budget bill (H.5500), which was a direct effort to roll back the state’s sales and use tax from 6.25% to 5%.
The income tax reduction was one of 11 potential ballot questions that had successfully cleared initial certification back in January. While the remaining questions move forward, this specific battle over the state’s tax code is officially finished for the 2026 cycle. -RD
