Massachusetts Question 1, Tax on Income Above $1 Million for Education and Transportation Amendment (2022)

Massachusetts Question 1
Election date November 8, 2022
Topic Taxes
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

Massachusetts Question 1, the Tax on Income Above $1 Million for Education and Transportation Amendment, was on the ballot in Massachusetts as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 8, 2022. The ballot measure was approved.

A "yes" vote supported amending the state constitution to create an additional tax of 4% for income over $1 million, in addition to the existing 5% flat-rate income tax, and dedicate revenue to education and transportation purposes.

A "no" vote opposed amending the state constitution to create an additional tax of 4% for income over $1 million, thereby maintaining the existing flat-rate income tax of 5% with revenue dedicated to the state's general fund.

Election results

Massachusetts Question 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,265,815	52.26%
No		1,156,323	47.74%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

How did Question 1 change Massachusetts' income tax rate?

See also: Text of measure

Question 1 created an additional 4% tax on the portion of income above $1 million for the purpose of providing funds for public education, roads and bridges, and public transportation. The tax is levied in addition to the state's 5% flat income tax, for a total tax rate of 9% on income above $1 million. The amendment also authorized the $1 million threshold to be adjusted according to any changes in the cost of living in Massachusetts using the same method used to establish federal income brackets. The tax took effect on January 1, 2023.

Who supported and opposed Question 1?

See also: Support and Opposition

Fair Share Massachusetts, Vote Yes on Fair Share 2022, and Coalition for Social Justice Fair Share 2021-2022 Ballot Committee were registered in support of Question 1. Together the committees reported $31.8 million in cash and in-kind contributions. Fair Share Massachusetts previously sponsored an initiative campaign to place the same amendment on the 2018 ballot, but it was removed by the Massachusetts Supreme Court after it was certified. Raise Up Massachusetts said, "Long before the pandemic, Massachusetts needed new investments in our transportation and public education systems. These investments are needed now more than ever to lift up our economy for everyone and to ensure Massachusetts remains a great place to live, work, and raise a family. Massachusetts needs sustainable, long-term revenue for these investments that don’t require low- and middle-income families to pay more."

The amendment was sponsored in the state legislature by Rep. James O'Day (D).

There were two committees registered in opposition to the amendment: Coalition to Stop the Tax Hike Amendment and Don't Kill the Goose. The committees reported $14.7 million in cash and in-kind contributions. The coalition said on its website, "If passed, it would be one of the state’s highest income tax increases in history and immediately impose an 80% tax increase on tens of thousands of small business owners, large employers, and retirees. And, it would give politicians a blank check to spend billions of taxpayer dollars however they want, with no accountability."

How did Question 1 relate to a 2018 initiative that did not make the ballot?

See also: Income Tax Initiative removed from the ballot in 2018

In 2018, signatures for the Income Tax for Education and Transportation Initiative were certified and the legislature voted to refer the initiative, but the Massachusetts Supreme Court blocked the initiative from appearing on the ballot. The initiative would have enacted the same income tax with revenue dedicated to education and transportation as the 2022 amendment. The ballot initiative, according to the ruling, encompassed two subjects—a tax and a dedication of revenue, which violated the state constitution's requirement that the initiative contains subjects "which are related or which are mutually dependent." The state constitution does not require legislative referrals to meet the same subject requirement as citizen initiatives.

What other states voted on education funding measures in 2022?

See also: Education funding ballot measures in 2022

Five ballot measures related to education funding were certified for the 2022 ballot in five states—California, Colorado, Idaho Advisory Ballot, Massachusetts, and New Mexico.

Text of measure

Ballot question

The ballot question was as follows:

“

Do you approve of the adoption of an amendment to the constitution summarized below, which was approved by the General Court in joint sessions of the two houses on June 12, 2019 (yeas 147 – nays 48); and again on June 9, 2021 (yeas 159 – nays 41)?

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

This proposed constitutional amendment would establish an additional 4% state income tax on that portion of annual taxable income in excess of $1 million. This income level would be adjusted annually, by the same method used for federal income-tax brackets, to reflect increases in the cost of living. Revenues from this tax would be used, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature, for public education, public colleges and universities; and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges, and public transportation. The proposed amendment would apply to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2023.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article XLIV, Massachusetts Constitution

Question 1 added the following underlined text to Article XLIV of the Massachusetts Constitution. The following text was added:

To provide the resources for quality public education and affordable public colleges and universities, and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation, all revenues received in accordance with this paragraph shall be expended, subject to appropriation, only for these purposes. In addition to the taxes on income otherwise authorized under this Article, there shall be an additional tax of 4% on that portion of annual taxable income in excess of $1,000,000 (one million dollars) reported on any return related to those taxes. To ensure that this additional tax continues to apply only to the commonwealth’s highest income taxpayers, this $1,000,000 (one million dollars) income level shall be adjusted annually to reflect any increases in the cost of living by the same method used for federal income tax brackets. This paragraph shall apply to all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2023.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2022

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The secretary of state wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 17, and the FRE is 46. The word count for the ballot title is 38.

The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 16, and the FRE is 27. The word count for the ballot summary is 93.

Support

Fair Share Massachusetts led the Yes on 1 campaign in support of the amendment.

Supporters

Fair Share Massachusetts published a list of endorsements that can be found here.

Officials

• U.S. Sen. Edward J. Markey (D)
• U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D)
• Senate President Karen Spilka (D)
• State Rep. Adrian Madaro (D)
• House Speaker Ronald Mariano (D)
• State Rep. James O'Day (D)
• Attorney General Maura Healey (D)

Candidates

• Benjamin Downing (D) - 2022 gubernatorial candidate

Government Entities

• Springfield City Council

Unions

• American Federation of Teachers
• Massachusetts Teachers Association
• SEIU Massachusetts State Council

Organizations

• Greater Newburyport Anti-Racism Affinity Group
• Merrimack Valley Project
• Raise Up Massachusetts
• Unitarian Universalist Mass Action

Arguments

• Marie-Frances Rivera, president of the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center: "[The coronavirus pandemic has] shown us in real time what the effects of chronic disinvestment in communities of color and low-income communities around the state actually look like."
• State Rep. James O'Day (D-14th Worcester District): "The Massachusetts economy is working great for those in the upper 1%. The time is now for all Massachusetts residents to reap the benefits of what this great state can accomplish with the revenue of the Fair Share Amendment."
• Raise Up Massachusetts: "Long before the pandemic, Massachusetts needed new investments in our transportation and public education systems. These investments are needed now more than ever to lift up our economy for everyone and to ensure Massachusetts remains a great place to live, work, and raise a family. Massachusetts needs sustainable, long-term revenue for these investments that doesn’t require low- and middle-income families to pay more."
• Andrew Farnitano, a spokesman for Raise Up Massachusetts: "The Fair Share Amendment is not about one budget cycle. It’s about making generational investments over the next 10, 20, 30, 40 years. From our perspective, the need for the investment has never been greater coming out of the pandemic."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of Question 1 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Official Voter Information Guide: By voting Yes on Question 1, you will make sure that the very richest in Massachusetts – those who make over $1 million a year – pay their fair share. Current tax rules allow multimillionaires to pay a smaller share in taxes than the rest of us. Question 1, the “Millionaires’ Tax,” will make the extremely wealthy pay an additional 4 percent on the portion of their yearly income above $1 million. The additional money is constitutionally guaranteed to go toward transportation and public education. Question 1 means every child can go to a great school. We can fix our roads, expand access to vocational training, and make public colleges more affordable. Excellent roads and schools help our small businesses grow, create new jobs, and build strong communities. Question 1 means creating opportunity for everyone. Vote Yes on Question 1. Only the very rich will pay — not the rest of us. ---Cynthia Roy, Fair Share Massachusetts

Opposition

The Coalition to Stop the Tax Hike Amendment led the No on Question 1 campaign in opposition to the amendment.

Opponents

The campaign provided a list of endorsements, which is available here.

Officials

• State Rep. Marc Lombardo (R)

Candidates

• Geoff Diehl (R) - 2022 gubernatorial candidate

Former Officials

• State Rep. James Lyons Jr. (R)

Organizations

• Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM)
• Boston Chamber of Commerce
• Citizens for Limited Taxation
• Massachusetts Seafood Collaborative
• Pioneer Institute
• Retailers Association of Massachusetts

Individuals

• Christopher Carlozzi - State Director of the National Federation of Independent Business

Arguments

• Massachusetts Republican Party Chairman Jim Lyons: Lyons said the amendment was “a blatant cash grab masquerading as class warfare.” He added, "Massachusetts doesn’t have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem."
• Christopher Carlozzi, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) in Massachusetts: "A millionaire’s tax could also send wealthy people fleeing the state and leave Massachusetts with less revenue, which would place a financial burden upon the remaining residents who would see taxes go up, small business owners included."
• State Rep. Marc Lombardo (R-22nd Middlesex District): "These taxpayers are paying their fair share, they’re paying more dollars than any other taxpaying class in the commonwealth."
• David Tuerck president of the Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research: "This is the wrong tax increase at the wrong time."
• CJ Ganji, general manager of Fresh Valley Foods Corporation in Haverhill, Massachusetts: "Every penny that they take out of our pockets, that's another job we can't create and more investment that we can't put back into our business. This income surtax would be another slap in the face."
• Alex Brill, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute: "The surtax’s impact on federal tax revenue raises bigger concerns. Every $100 decline in taxable income among millionaires in Massachusetts would reduce federal revenues by as much as $37, depending on the type of income and the adopted tax avoidance strategy. Strikingly, the federal revenue loss, which I estimate to be $1.9 billion, would exceed the revenue gain for Massachusetts. And who would save on their federal tax bill? Millionaires in Massachusetts. Advocates of the surtax may not realize that it would result in some wealthy Massachusetts residents actually paying less total tax than they would have."
• Eileen McAnneny, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation: "A sizable number of people who will be subject to this tax aren’t what I’d call perennial millionaires. It would likely capture a lot of one-time millionaires — a person selling their business once in a lifetime, a person selling their family home once in a lifetime — all those people could potentially be captured by this tax hike."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in opposition to Question 1 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Official Voter Information Guide: SMALL BUSINESSES, FAMILY FARMERS, HOMEOWNERS, AND RETIREES URGE NO ON QUESTION 1. Question 1 nearly doubles the state income tax rate on tens of thousands of small-business owners, large employers, and retirees. Question 1 treats one-time earnings—the sale of homes, investments, businesses, pensions, and inheritances—as income. This would suddenly force many residents into the new, very high tax bracket, depleting the nest eggs of small-business owners and longtime homeowners whose retirement depends on their investments. Record inflation, supply chain difficulties, and continuing COVID-19 issues make now the worst possible time for massive tax increases—especially when Massachusetts already has a giant budget surplus! There is absolutely NO GUARANTEE revenue from this huge tax hike would actually increase spending on education and transportation. Politicians are giving themselves a blank check, with no accountability. Organizations representing over 20,000 small businesses and family farmers urge: Vote NO on Question 1. ---Paul D’Amore, small business representative, Coalition To Stop The Tax Hike Amendment

Campaign advertisements

The following video was released by NO on Massachusetts Question 1:

Title: "NO on Question 1

Campaign finance

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through January 20, 2023.

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Massachusetts ballot measures

Ballotpedia identified three committees registered in support of Question 1: Fair Share Massachusetts, Vote Yes on Fair Share 2022, and Coalition for Social Justice Fair Share 2021-2022 Ballot Committee. Together the committees reported $32.1 million in cash and in-kind contributions. There was one committee registered in opposition to Question 1: Coalition to Stop the Tax Hike Amendment. The committee reported $14.7 million in cash and in-kind contributions. Massachusetts also requires other organizations that spend money to support or oppose ballot measures to report amounts to the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance. Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance reported spending $13,605.22 in opposition to Question 1.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$28,403,227.51	$3,695,173.51	$32,098,401.02	$28,380,408.50	$32,075,582.01
Oppose	$14,697,702.58	$22,610.04	$14,720,312.62	$14,537,440.68	$14,560,050.72
Total	$43,100,930.09	$3,717,783.55	$46,818,713.64	$42,917,849.18	$46,635,632.73

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot measure.

Committees in support of Question 1
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Fair Share Massachusetts	$28,223,487.51	$3,694,928.45	$31,918,415.96	$28,245,693.81	$31,940,622.26
Coalition for Social Justice Fair Share 2021-2022 Ballot Committee	$143,240.00	$245.06	$143,485.06	$127,017.30	$127,262.36
Vote Yes on Fair Share 2022	$36,500.00	$0.00	$36,500.00	$7,697.39	$7,697.39
Total	$28,403,227.51	$3,695,173.51	$32,098,401.02	$28,380,408.50	$32,075,582.01

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in support of the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Massachusetts Teachers Association	$15,543,500.00	$1,946,915.22	$17,490,415.22
National Education Association	$6,500,000.00	$225,979.58	$6,725,979.58
Sixteen Thirty Fund	$1,500,000.00	$132,935.00	$1,632,935.00
1199 SEIU MA PAC	$1,235,000.00	$196,551.19	$1,431,551.19
AFT Massachusetts AFL-CIO	$1,025,000.00	$10,177.03	$1,035,177.03

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the ballot measure.

Committees in opposition to Question 1
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Coalition to Stop the Tax Hike Amendment	$14,697,702.58	$22,610.04	$14,720,312.62	$14,537,440.68	$14,560,050.72
Total	$14,697,702.58	$22,610.04	$14,720,312.62	$14,537,440.68	$14,560,050.72

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in opposition to the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
James Davis	$2,000,000.00	$0.00	$2,000,000.00
Suffolk Construction Co. Inc.	$1,010,000.00	$0.00	$1,010,000.00
Paul Edgerley	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
Rand-Whitney Containerboard	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
Sandra Edgerley	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the measure.

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

• The Berkshire Eagle Editorial Board: "If it does, this will be serious step toward making the state tax system more equitable in a way that only impacts a very while generating revenue for public investment that our communities desperately need. That’s an opportunity Massachusetts voters shouldn’t pass up. The Eagle endorses a yes vote on Question 1."
• The Harvard Crimson Editorial Board: "We find question one’s tax increases not only unobjectionable but blatantly beneficial — if not for a tiny handful of Beacon Hill high earners, for everyone around them who, through their consumption and labor, tacitly enables such exorbitant earnings. If a meager 4 percent rise in your marginal tax rate can increase your state-level tax bill by a figure equivalent to others’ annual income, odds are you should probably be taxed. ... On those grounds, out of solidarity with our entire state and the challenges our fellow residents face, we urge Massachusetts voters to vote yes on ballot question one."

Opposition

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2022 ballot measure polls

Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Massachusetts Question 1, Tax on Income Above $1 Million for Education and Transportation Amendment (2022)
Poll	Dates	Sample size	Margin of error	Support	Oppose	Undecided

UMass Amherst/WCVB	10/20/22 - 10/26/22	700 RV	± 4.3%	59%	33%	8%
	Question: "Question 1 - Would establish an additional 4% state income tax on individuals with taxable incomes in excess of $1 million. Revenues from this tax would be used for public education, public colleges, and universities as well as for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges, and public transportation."

Suffolk University/ Boston Globe/ NBC10 Boston/ Telemundo	10/13/22 - 10/16/22	500 LV	± 4.4%	58.4%	37.4%	4.2%
	Question: "A yes vote on a ballot question would amend the state Constitution to impose an additional 4% tax on that portion of incomes over one million dollars to be used on education and transportation. A no vote would make no change in the state Constitution relative to income tax. At this point, will you vote yes or no?"

MassINC Polling Group	12/20/21 - 12/26/21	1,026 RV	N/A	69.0%	21.0%	10.0%
	Question: "There will be a question on the ballot in November 2022 that would create an additional 4% tax on the portion of someone’s income over $1 million a year. The minimum amount to trigger the tax would go up with inflation every year. The money collected would be dedicated to transportation and public education. Based on this description, would you support or oppose this additional 4% tax on the portion of someone’s income over $1 million a year?"

MassINC Polling Group	12/8/20 - 12/20/20	1,522 RV	N/A	72.0%	20.0%	7.0%
	Question: "In 2022, there may be a ballot question that would create an additional 4% tax on income over $1 million a year. The minimum amount to trigger the tax would go up with inflation every year. The funds collected by the tax would be dedicated to public K-12 and higher education and transportation, including roads, bridges, and public transportation. Based on this description, would you support or oppose this additional 4% tax on income over $1 million a year?"

Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.

Background

Income Tax Initiative removed from ballot in 2018

See also: Massachusetts Income Tax for Education and Transportation Initiative (2018)

In 2018, signatures for the Income Tax for Education and Transportation Initiative were certified and the legislature voted to refer the initiative, but the Massachusetts Supreme Court blocked the initiative from appearing on the ballot. The initiative would have created an additional 4% tax on the portion of incomes above $1 million for the purpose of providing funds for public education, roads and bridges, and public transportation. The state Supreme Court ruled that the initiative violated Article LXXIV, which requires that an initiative "contain only subjects not excluded from the popular initiative and which are related or which are mutually dependent." The ballot initiative, according to the ruling, encompassed two subjects—a tax and a dedication of revenue.

History of income taxes in Massachusetts

As of 2022, the Massachusetts Constitution specified that all income must be taxed uniformly by the state. For tax year 2022, Massachusetts was one of nine states implementing a flat income tax rate. Personal income tax generated $23.3 billion or 64.3% of total taxes collected by the state in 2021. All income tax revenue is dedicated to the state's general fund.

In 2000, voters approved Question 4, the Massachusetts Income Tax Rate Reduction Initiative, to reduce the state income tax rate from 5.85% to 5%, beginning with a reduction to 5.6% in 2001 and to 5.3% in 2002. The state legislature passed a law in 2002 to reduce the rate by 0.05% per year thereafter only if economic triggers were met. The income tax rate for tax year 2020 was 5%. The following table shows the rate each year from 1977 to 2020.

Income tax on the ballot in Massachusetts

Between 1962 and 2020, Massachusetts voters decided on 11 ballot measures related to state income tax. Four were referred to the ballot by the state legislature, and the other seven were citizen initiatives. Nine measures were defeated, and two were approved. Three measures were designed to reduce the income tax rate. Two of the three were approved. Two initiatives were designed to eliminate the state's income tax. They were both defeated. Six measures were designed to create a graduated tax rate instead of a flat rate; they were all defeated.

Measure	Purpose	Type	Outcome
Question 1 (2008)	Eliminate	Initiative	d
Question 1 (2002)	Eliminate	Initiative	d
Question 4 (2000)	Reduced rate	Initiative	a
Question 3 (1998)	Reduced rate	Initiative	a
Question 7 (1994)	Graduated rate	Initiative	d
Question 6 (1994)	Graduated rate	Initiative	d
Question 3 (1990)	Reduced rate	Initiative	d
Question 2 (1976)	Graduated rate	Referral	d
Question 6 (1972)	Graduated rate	Referral	d
Question 2 (1968)	Graduated rate	Referral	d
Question 1 (1962)	Graduated rate	Referral	d

Education funding in Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, funding for education is governed by the Chapter 70 Program, which establishes a minimum per-pupil funding level and the proportions of that minimum that are funded by state and local governments. The portion of local funding is determined through a formula that considers the district's income level and property values. Local governments can appropriate more than the required amount per pupil without penalty.

As of 2022, Massachusetts ranked 6th in school funding. The state funds on average $7,746 per pupil ($7.4 billion total), and local governments fund on average $11,061 per pupil ($10.6 billion total). The state received $927 per pupil ($892.2 million) from the federal government.

Income tax in other states

At the time of election, 43 states taxed individual income—41 taxed wages while New Hampshire taxed only dividend and interest revenue and Washington taxes the capital gains income of high earners. The remaining seven states did not tax personal income. Of the 41 states with an income tax, 11 states—including Massachusetts—have a flat rate, and the other states have graduated rates that varied depending on different income brackets. The number of income tax brackets ranged from three in Kansas to 12 in Hawaii.

The tax rate applied to income within the highest bracket across the 43 states with income taxes ranging from 2.9% applied to income above $445,000 in North Dakota to 13.3% applied to income above $1,000,000 in California. Compared to 2022 rates, this initiative would make Massachusetts the state with the seventh-highest income tax rate that applied to income above $1,000,000.

Education funding ballot measures in 2022

Five ballot measures related to education funding were certified for the 2022 ballot in five states.

State	Measure	Description	Outcome
California	Proposition 28, Art and Music K-12 Education Funding Initiative	Requires funding for K-12 art and music education
Colorado	Reduce Income Tax Deduction Amounts to Fund School Meals Program Measure	Reduces the allowable state income tax deduction amounts; creates and funds the Healthy School Meals for All Program
Idaho	Income and Corporate Tax Changes and Education Funding Advisory Question	Advising the legislature to enact a flat income and corporate tax rate structure, send tax rebates to qualifying taxpayers, and dedicate $400 million annually to education
Massachusetts	Question 1, Tax on Income Above $1 Million for Education and Transportation Amendment	Creates a 4% tax on incomes that exceed $1 million for education and transportation purposes
New Mexico	Constitutional Amendment 1, Land Grant Permanent Fund Distribution for Early Childhood Education Amendment	Funds devoted to early childhood programs from the Land Grant Permanent Fund

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Massachusetts Constitution

In Massachusetts, both chambers of the state General Court meet as a single convention to vote on amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution. An amendment needs to receive the vote of 101 of 200 state legislators during two successive legislatures to appear on the ballot.

191st General Court

The 191st Massachusetts General Court was elected on November 6, 2018, to meet in 2019 and 2020.

Rep. James O'Day (D-14th, Worcester) introduced the constitutional amendment as House Bill 86 in 2019. On June 12, 2019, the state General Court convened a convention to vote on the constitutional amendment. The convention approved the amendment, thereby forwarding it to the 192nd General Court for a second vote during the 2021-2022 session. The vote was 147 to 48 with five Democratic members absent or not voting. Members of the House voted 112-43, and members of the Senate voted 35-5.

Vote in the Massachusetts General Court June 12, 2019
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in a joint session of both chambers in two sessions
Number of yes votes required: 101  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	147	48	5
Total percent	73.5%	24.0%	2.5%
Democrat	145	11	5
Republican	1	37	0
Independent	1	0	0

192nd General Court

The 192nd Massachusetts General Court was elected on November 3, 2020, to meet in 2021 and 2022.

The state General Court held a joint session on June 9, 2021, where they approved the amendment by a vote of 159-41. The amendment was introduced in the 2021 legislative session as Senate Bill 5. All but one Republican, Sen. Patrick O'Connor, voted against the amendment, and all but nine Democrats favored it. The sole Independent member, Rep. Susannah Whipps, voted in favor of it.

Vote in the Massachusetts General Court June 9, 2021
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in a joint session of both chambers in two sessions
Number of yes votes required: 101  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	159	41	0
Total percent	79.5%	20.5%	0.0%
Democrat	157	9	0
Republican	1	32	0
Independent	1	0	0

Lawsuit

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Whether the ballot summary is accurate or misleading
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs; The ballot summary is fair and not misleading
Plaintiff(s): Christopher R. Anderson, president of the Massachusetts High Technology Council	Defendant(s): Attorney General Maura Healey (D) and Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Galvin
Plaintiff argument: The ballot summary is misleading because it does not explain that the legislature is not mandated to appropriate the additional income tax revenue to education and transportation.	Defendant argument: Unknown

  Source: Bloomberg

On January 27, 2022, a lawsuit was filed with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court by Christopher R. Anderson, president of the Massachusetts High Technology Council, against Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D) and Secretary of State William Galvin (D). The lawsuit argued that the ballot summary was misleading voters about how the revenue from the proposed income tax would be spent. An attorney for Anderson said, "Ultimately, we’re looking for the court either to order the attorney general to inform voters in the ballot material that the legislature has discretion on how to spend the money or to keep it off the ballot altogether."

On June 22, 2022, the state Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs concluding that the ballot summary was fair and not misleading. The justices said, "The Attorney General’s summary need not opine on whether, as plaintiffs contend, monies that historically have been spent on education and transportation could, at some future point, be spent elsewhere. The summary need only describe the amendment itself; we hold that it does so fairly."

Reports and analyses

Note: The inclusion of a report, white page, or study concerning a ballot measure in this article does not indicate that Ballotpedia agrees with the conclusions of that study or that Ballotpedia necessarily considers the study to have a sound methodology, accurate conclusions, or a neutral basis. To read a full explanation of Ballotpedia's policy on the inclusion of reports and analyses, please click here. If you would like to submit a report or analysis to be considered for inclusion in this section, email editor@ballotpedia.org.

The Beacon Hill Institute report

The Beacon Hill Institute, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, published a report on June 8, 2021, that concluded the 2022 amendment "will likely harm the state’s economy with the loss of jobs, investment and disposable income." The study used the Institute’s State Tax Analysis Modeling Program, a computer modeling program, and found that Massachusetts was likely to lose high-income households to other states because of the tax. According to the report, the Institute predicted the additional tax would generate $1.2 billion in revenue in its first year in effect.

The full text of the report can be read here.

The Center for State Policy Analysis report

The Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University published a report in January 2022 that concluded the amendment would generate about $1.3 billion in 2023. The report also concluded that the tax would affect 0.6% of households in Massachusetts and that the "short-term impact on the Massachusetts economy is likely to be negligible" and the long-term impact would depend on whether the state allocated the revenue to education and transportation investments.

The full text of the report can be read here.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Massachusetts

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Massachusetts.

How to cast a vote in Massachusetts

Poll times In Massachusetts, most polling places are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. However, municipalities may open their polls as early as 5:45 a.m. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Registration Check your voter registration status here. To vote in Massachusetts, one must be a United States citizen, a resident of Massachusetts, and at least 18 years old on or before Election Day. The deadline for registration is 10 days prior to the election. A voter can register online, by mail, or in person at any registration office or the Registry of Motor Vehicles. A form of identification is required to register. The following are acceptable forms of identification: Valid driver's license State-issued identification card Current utility bill Bank statement Paystub Government-issued check Any other government document displaying the voter's name and address Automatic registration Massachusetts automatically registers eligible individuals to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles, division of medical assistance, health insurance connector authority, and other agencies that collect what state law defines as reliable citizenship information. Online registration See also: Online voter registration Massachusetts has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registration Massachusetts does not allow same-day voter registration. Residency requirements To register to vote in Massachusetts, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible. Verification of citizenship See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States Massachusetts does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual must attest that they are a U.S. citizen when registering to vote. According to the state's voter registration application, the penalty for an illegal registration is a "fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years or both." All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters. Verifying your registration The Elections and Voting page, run by the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirements Massachusetts does not require voters to present identification (ID) while voting, in most cases. However, voters will be asked to show ID in the following circumstances: “ You are voting for the first time in Massachusetts in a federal election; You are an inactive voter; You are casting a provisional or challenged ballot; The poll worker has a reasonable suspicion that leads them to request identification. ” The following list of accepted ID was current as of August 2024: A driver's license A state ID card A recent utility bill A rent receipt or lease. A copy of a voter registration affidavit A letter from a school dormitory or housing office Any other printed identification which contains your name and address Click here for the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information. “ Acceptable identification must include your name and the address at which you are registered to vote. Examples of acceptable identification include: a driver's license, state-issued ID card, recent utility bill, rent receipt, lease, a copy of a voter registration affidavit, or any other printed identification which contains the voter's name and address. ”

See also

2022 measures

• 2022 ballot measures
• Taxes on the ballot
• Education on the ballot
• Transportation on the ballot

Massachusetts

• Massachusetts ballot measures
• Massachusetts ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Massachusetts House Bill 86 (2019)

Support

• Raise Up campaign website
• Raise Up Facebook page
• Raise Up Twitter page

Opposition

• Stop the Tax Hike Amendment campaign website
• Stop the Tax Hike Amendment Facebook page
• Stop the Tax Hike Amendment Twitter page