SJC-12064 01 Appellant Gray Brief

8/18/2019 SJC-12064 01 Appellant Gray Brief

1/115

COMMONWEALTH

OF MASSACHUSETTS

upreme Jubitial Qeourt

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF

MASSACHUSETTS

NO. SJC-12064

STEPHANIE GRAY,

ROBERT

ANTONUCCI,

BILL

WALCZAK, DIANNE

KELLY, B. JOHN DILL,

KALIMAH

RAHIM,

APRIL WEST,

BEVERLY HOLMES,

JACINTHE ALBANI,

AND VANESSA CALDERON

ROSADO,

•

Pla in t i f f s /Appel lan t s ,

v.

MAURA HEALEY, IN

HER

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

AND

WILLIAM

F.

GALVIN, IN HIS

OFFICIAL

CAPACITY

AS

SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH,

Defendants/Appellees

ON RESERVATION

AND

REPORT FROM

THE

SUPREME JUDICIAL

COURT FOR SUFFOLK

COUNTY

BRIEF

OF

PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS

Kevin C.

Conroy (BBO

No. 644894)

Thaddeus A. Heuer

(BBO

No. 666730)

Andrew M. London

(BBO

No. 690782)

FOLEY HOAG LLP

Seapor t World

Trade Center West

155 Seapor t Boulevard

Boston, MA 02210-2600

617-832-1000

kconroy®foleyhoag.com

theuer®foleyhoag.com

alondon®foleyhoag.com

Dated: March

7,

2016


2/115

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................... i

TABLE

OF AUTHORITIES ............................... iii

QUESTION PRESENTED ................................... 1

STATEMENT

OF

THE CASE ................................

1

A.

Procedural His tory .............................. 4

B. Statement of the Facts .......................... 5

SUMMARY OF

ARGUMENT

.................................. 8

ARGUMENT

............................................

11

I . THE

PETITION DOES NOT COMPLY

WITH ARTICLE

48

BECAUSE

SECTION 1 PROPOSES NEITHER A LAW

NOR

A

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ....................... 11

I I .

THE

PETITION

DOES

NOT COMPLY

WITH

ARTICLE

48

BECAUSE SECTION 1 PROPOSES

TO

'RESCIND' A VOTE

WHICH HAD NO OPERATIVE EFFECT

.................. 17

I I I .

THE PETITION

DOES NOT COMPLY

WITH ARTICLE

48

BECAUSE IT CONTAINS SUBJECTS THAT ARE NEITHER

RELATED

NOR MUTUALLY

DEPENDENT

................. 21

A. Diagnos t ic

Assessments

Do Not

Share

A Common

Purpose

with

Curriculum Frameworks

..................

24

IV.

THE

PETITION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 48

BECAUSE IT DOES

NOT INCLUDE

THE

REQUISITE

ENACTING

LANGUAGE

..............................

3 3

CONCLUSION .......................................... 35

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...........................

37

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .............................. 38

Addendum A:

Development

Process,

Common Core Sta t e

Standards , ht tp : / /www.cores tandards .org /about- the-

s tandards/development-process ...................

ADD-1

Addendum B: Frequent ly

Asked

Quest ions , Common Core

Sta te Standards , ht tp : / /www.cores tandards .org /about -

the-s tandards / f requent ly-asked-ques t ions /

.......ADD-9

Addendum

C: Massachuset ts

Department

of

Elementary and

Secondary Educat ion, Massachuset ts Curriculum

Frameworks for

Engl ish

Art s

and Li teracy

(March

2 0

11

) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ADD- 1 7

i


3/115

Addendum D: Massachuset ts

Department of Elementary and

Secondary

Educat ion ,

Organizat ional

Char t (March

2015) .......................................... ADD-34

Addendum

E: Reserva t ion and

Repor t .............

ADD-36

Addendum

F: Mass. Const .

amend. Art . 48 ........ ADD-38

Addendum

G:

Mass.

Const .

amend

Art .

81 .........

ADD-49

Addendum H:

Mass.

Const . amend Art .

74

.........

ADD-54

Addendum I : M.G.L. c .

691

§1D

..........

• .......ADD-58

Addendum J :

M.G.L.

c .

69, §1E

..................

ADD-62

Addendum K:

M.G.L.

c .

69, §1I

..................

ADD-64

-

ii

-


4/115

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Abdow

v. At torney General ,

468 Mass. 478 (2014)

22, 23,

27,

29

Bowe

v.

Secre tary o f

Commonwealth,

320 Mass. 230 (1946) 15,

20

Carney v. At torney General ,

447

Mass.

218 (2006)

pass im

Cohen

v .

At torney General ,

3 57 Mass . 56 4 (

19

7 o ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 , 11,

12

Dimino

v . Secre tary o f the Commonwealth,

427 Mass. 704

(1998)

2

Hashimi

v.

Kal i l ,

3 8 8 Mass . 6 0 7 (

19

8 3 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3

Massachuset ts Teachers

Associa t ion

v. Secretary

o f

the Commonwealth,

384

Mass. 209 (1981) 20, 21, 22,

25,26

Mazzone

v. At torney General ,

432 Mass.

515 (2000)

pass im

In

re

Opinion

o f the Jus t i ces ,

302 Mass. 605

(1939)

15

Opinion

o f

the Jus t i ces ,

66 N.H. 629

(1891)

12

Opinion o f the J u s t i c e s to the House

o f

Represen ta t i ves ,

262 Mass. 603

(1928)

11, 12, 14

Opinion

o f

the

J u s t i c e s

to

the

House

o f

Represen ta t i ves ,

422

Mass. 1212 (1996)

3 ,

4,

26

Paisner

v.

At torney General ,

390 Mass. 593

(1983)

pass im

-

i i i

-


5/115

Sears v. Treasurer & Receiver General ,

327

Mass. 310

(1951)

. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Student Number 9 v. Board o f Education,

440

Mass.

752 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 13

Town

o f Canton

v.

Commissioner o f

Massachuset ts

Highway Department,

455

Mass. 783

(2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34

Const i tut iona l

Provis ions

Mass. C o n s t . ,

art.

4 , c . 1 , §1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

Mass. C o n s t . , art. 30

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

Mass.

Co n s t .

amend.

A r t .

48,

II

(The I n i t i a t i v e ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .• . . . . . . . . . . . . . p a s s i m

Mass.

Co n s t . amend A r t .

74

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 , 21

Mass .

Cons

t . amend A r t . 81, § 3 ...................... 3 4

Statutory

Authori t ies

M a s s a c h u s e t t s

E d u c a t i o n

Reform Ac t , S t . 1993 ,

c . 7 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

M.G.L.

c . 4 , §3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33, 35

M.G.L.

c . 15 , §1E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

M.G.L.

c . 40N, §25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

M.G.L. c .

43B,

§15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34

M.G.L. c . 43C, §5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34

M.G.L.

c .

69

.

. . . . .

.

. .

8 ,

12 ,

13, 14

M.G.L.

c .

69, §1D

. . . . . 3,

5 ,

7,

13 , 19

M.G.L.

c .

69,

§1E

. . .

. .

. .

5 ,

6 1

13 , 19

M.G.L.

c .

69,

§1I

. .

. . . . . . .

.

. .

3 ,

7

-

i v

-


6/115

M.G.L.

c . 71, §15 ............................... ,

...

34

Addit ional

Authori t ies

B al l en t i ne s

Law

Dict ionary

(3d

ed.

1969) ...........

17

Black s Law Dict ionary (8th ed.

2004) ...............

26

Black s Law Dict ionary (9th ed.

2009) ...............

17

Debates

in

the Massachuset ts Cons t i t u t iona l

Convention

1917-1918, Volume 2, 856 (1918) ........ 26

Development Process, Common

Core

S ta te Standards,

ht tp : / /www.cores tandards .org /about- the

s tandards/development-process

(accessed Mar. 4, 2016) ............................ 2

Frequent ly

Asked Quest ions ,

Common

Core

S ta te

Standards, ht tp : / /www.cores tandards .org /about

the - s t andards / f r equen t ly -asked-ques t ions /

(accessed Mar. 4, 2016) ............................ 2

Massachuset ts

Department

o f

Elementary and

Secondary

Education,

Massachuset ts Curriculum

Frameworks

for Engl ish Art s and Li t e racy (March

2011) ava i l ab l e

a t

ht tp :/ /www.doe .mass . edu/ frameworks /e la /0311.pdf

(accessed Mar. 4, 2016) ........................... 27

Massachuset ts

Department o f Elementary and

Secondary

Education, Organizat ional Chart(March

2015), ava i l ab l e a t

ht tp : / /www.doe.mass .edu/contact /orgchar t .pdf

(accessed

Mar.

4, 2016) ........................... 28

Minutes

o f

the Regular Meeting o f the

Massachuset ts

Board

o f Elementary

and

Secondary

Education

(Dec

.

21,

2010)

.....................

13,

19

Minutes o f the Special Meeting o f the

Massachuset ts

Board

o f Elementary

and Secondary

Education

(July 21, 2010) .................

13,

17,

18

- v -


7/115

QUESTIONS

PRESENTED

1.

Whether the Attorney General e r red i n ce r t i f y ing

I n i t i a t i ve

Pe t i t i on No.

15-12,

en t i t l ed In i t i a t i ve

Pe t i t i on

for

a Law

Relat ive

to

Ending

Common

Core

Educa t iona l Standards ( the

Pet i t ion ) , for

inc lus ion

on

the

Sta t e e l ec t i on

ba l lo t in November

2016.

2. Whether

the

Attorney General e r red i n ce r t i f y ing

the

Pe t i t i on

because the Pe t i t i on

does

not propose a

law as requi red by Art i c l e 48, I I (The I n i t i a t i ve ) .

3. Whether

the

Attorney General e r red i n ce r t i f y ing

the Pe t i t i on

because

the Pe t i t i on conta ins

sub jec t s

t ha t are

not

r e l a t ed

or

mutual ly dependent.

4.

Whether the Attorney General

e r red

i n ce r t i f y ing

the Pe t i t i on

because

the

Pe t i t i on i s

not otherwise

in

the proper

form

for

submission

to

the

people .

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

P l a i n t i f f s seek review

of a

proposed

b a l l o t

i n i t i a t i ve , which was dra f t ed to capture the ze i tge i s t

o f a na t iona l publ ic

po l i cy debate ,

but which f a i l s

to

meet

the Massachuset t s - speci f ic cons t i t u t i ona l

requirements

for

submiss ion to

the

people .

The

Common

Core Sta t e Standards

("Common

Core

or

"Common

Core Standards ) were developed in

2009

by

1


8/115

s t a t e leaders and educa tors

a t

the

i n i t i a t i v e of

the

National Governors Associa t ion and the

Council

of

Chief Sta te School

Off ice r s ,

to

ensure

t ha t

s tudents

are

equipped

with

the necessary

s k i l l s and

knowledge

to

be

g loba l ly

compet i t ive .

1

The Common

Core Standards

def ine learn ing

goals for

each grade l eve l , so

s tudents are able to meet expecta t ions for what every

c h i l d

should

know when they

graduate

high school .

2

In

December

2010,

the

Massachuset ts

Board of Elementary

and Secondary

Educat ion

( the Board ) ,

exerc i s ing

i t s

broad

s t a tu to r y d i s c r e t ion ,

adopted

new Massachuset ts

Curriculum

Frameworks, which incorpora te

Common

Core.

See

(Statement of

Agreed

Fac ts ( SAF )

~ 1 1 ;

SAF

Exhib i t F).

The

Common

Core

Standards

have

been

a t

the

cen te r

of the

na t ion-wide deba te about

educat ional s tandards

1

See Development

Process ,

Common

Core

Sta t e Standards,

h t tp :/ /ww w.cores t andards .o rg / abou t - the

s tandards /deve lopment-process

(accessed Mar. 4,

2016)

(Addendum

A

a t

ADD-2); see

a lso Dimino v.

Secretary o f the Commonwealth, 427 Mass. 704, 707

(1998)

( [ f ] ac tua l

mat t e r s

which

a re

' i nd i spu tab ly

t rue are

sub jec t

to j ud ic i a l not ice

as pa r t

of

the

i n i t i a t i ve

review process)

.

2

See Frequent ly

Asked Quest ions ,

Common

Core

Sta te

Standards, ht tp : / /www.cores tandards .org /about- the

s t andards / f r equen t ly -asked-ques t ions / (accessed

Mar.

4,

2016)

(Addendum B

a t

ADD-10).

- 2 -


9/115

and

cur r icu lum

in publ ic schools . The s ix t een

r eg i s t e r ed

vo te r s

who

submit ted

the Pe t i t i on

( the

Pe t i t i one rs )

oppose the Common

Core Standards. The

Pe t i t i on seeks

to do three th ings: 1)

resc ind

a

Ju ly

2010 vote of

the

Board r e l a t ive to Common Core,

2)amend G.L. c . 69,

§1D to change the process

by

which

the Board adopts

fu tu re

cur r icu lum

frameworks,

and 3)

amend

G.L. c . 69,

§1I to

mandate

the re lease of a l l

t e s t i tems, inc luding ques t ions ,

from

the

s t a t e

d iagnos t i c

assessment .

The

requirements se t for th

in

Art i c l e

48

for

submi t t ing a

p e t i t i o n to the

people

are

not

mere

forma l i t i e s .

Opinion

o f

the

Jus t i ces to

the House

o f

Representa t ives , 422 Mass. 1212, 1219

(1996)

( s t a t i ng

t ha t

the

Court

requi re s

s t r i c t

adherence

to

the

cons t i t u t i ona l requirements for i n i t i a t i ve

pet i t ions

and t ha t

those

requirements are

not

mere

t e c h n i c a l i t i e s ) . The I n i t i a t i ve and Referendum was

one

of the most debated

i s sues

a t the

Cons t i tu t iona l

Convention of

1917-1918.

See

Cohen v. At torney

Gen.,

357 Mass. 564, 572

(1970).

The people of

the

Commonwealth,

in

adopt ing Art i c l e

48,

apprec i a t ed

the

so lemni ty

of l eg i s l a t ing

through

the

popula r

i n i t i a t i v e

and se t fo r t h c lear l imi ta t ions on

the

use

- 3 -


10/115

of the

i n i t i a t i v e

pe t i t i on . When the people seek to

enact laws

by

d i rec t

popula r

vote , they

must

do so in

s t r i c t

compliance

with those provis ions

and

condi t ions .

Opinion

o f

the

Just ices ,

422

Mass. a t

1219

( c i t i ng

Sears v . Treasurer & Receiver Gen., 327

Mass. 310,

321

(1951)).

The Pe t i t i one r s

f a i l ed

to

meet the

Art ic le

48

requirements . Never the less ,

the

Attorney General

c e r t i f i e d

t ha t

the

Pe t i t i on

met

the requirements of

Ar t i c l e 48, and

the

Secre tary ,

sub jec t

t o rece ip t of

addi t i ona l

s igna tu res

requi red by Ar t i c l e 48, in tends

to

put

the

Pe t i t i on

on the

2016

b a l l o t .

In t h i s

l i t i ga t i on ,

the

Pla in t i f f s

chal lenge

t ha t

c e r t i f i c a t i o n

and ba l lo t

placement,

maintain tha t the

Pe t i t i on

does not

meet

the cons t i t u t i ona l

requirements , and ask

tha t

t h i s Court

quash the

c e r t i f i c a t i o n by

the

Attorney Genera l .

A Procedural History

P l a i n t i f f s

a re t en

r e g i s t e r e d vo te r s in the

Commonwealth of Massachuset ts . (SAF

~ 1 ) .

Pla in t i f f s

commenced

t h i s

ac t ion

by

complain t

f i l ed

in

the

Supreme J ud i c i a l

Court

for

Suffo lk

County. The

complain t

sought r e l i e f in

the

nature of ce r t i o r a r i

and mandamus to quash the


of the

- 4 -


11/115

Pe t i t i on by

the

Attorney General , and to en jo in

the

Secre tary from p lac ing

the

Pe t i t i on on the 2016

s ta tewide b a l l o t . On j o i n t motion and

an

agreed

s ta tement of

f ac t s ,

the

Single

J us t i ce

reserved

and

repor ted

the

case

for considera t ion by the fu l l Court

(Addendum E a t ADD-37) .

B Statement o f the Facts

The Massachuset ts General

Court ,

by s t a tu t e , has

granted the Board broad

author i ty

to

evalua te ,

s e l ec t

and

adopt cur r icu lum

frameworks

for

kindergar ten

through

the

12th grade in

Massachuset ts publ ic

schools .

See

G.L. c .

69, §§lD & lE. The

Board consis t s

of 11

members, a l l

of whom

except

one ( the sea t

r ese rved for

the chairman of

the s tudent

advisory

counc i l )

a re appointed

by

the

Governor .

G.L.

c .

15,

§lE.

3

Pursuant

to

t h i s s t a tu to r y author i ty , on Ju ly 21,

2010, the Board

voted by

a motion to

adopt

the 2010

Common Core Sta t e Standards

to

rep lace the

cu r ren t

Massachuset ts curr iculum frameworks in Engl ish

3

The

chairman

of the

s tudent

advisory counci l

i s

a

cur ren t s tudent a t a secondary school in

Massachuset ts , and i s . s e l e c t e d by the othe r s tudent

members

of the

s tuden t

advisory

counci l .

- 5 -


12/115

Language

Arts

and

Mathematics, cont ingent

upon

augmenting and

customizing

the Common Core Sta t e

Standards with in the 15 percent al lowance for s t a t e

spec i f i c content

(SAF

~ 1 0 ;

SAF

Exhibi t

E)

(emphasis

added)

. The motion requi red the

Commissioner of

Elementary and Secondary Educat ion ( the

Commissioner ) to subsequent ly

present

hi s

recommendations for augmenting and

customizing

the

Common

Core

to the Board. (SAF

Exhib i t

E). Following

a publ ic comment per iod , the Commissioner was

i n s t ruc t e d

to present

to

the

Board

the f ina l Common

Core

Sta t e Standards inc luding

the

Massachuset ts

spec i f i c augmentat ion for

the

Board 's approval . Upon

approval by

the

Board, the f i na l documents [would]

be

the

new

Massachuset ts

Curriculum

Frameworks

for

Engl ish

Language

Arts

and

Mathematics. Id . The Board

passed

the motion unanimously.

Id.

On

December 21, 2010, exerc i s ing i t s

discre t ion

as

au thor i zed by G.L. c .

69,

§1E, the Board

voted

to

adopt

the

new Massachuse t t s

Curriculum Framework

for

Engl i sh

Language

A r t s and

Li teracy ,

Incorporat ing the

Common

Core

S ta te Standards, and

the

new Massachuse t t s

Curriculum Framework for

Mathematics,

Incorporat ing

- 6 -


13/115

the

Common Core S ta te Standards .

Exhib i t F)

( i t a l i c s

in or ig ina l ) .

(SAF ~ 1 1 ; SAF

On or before August 5, 2015, the Pet i t ioner s

submit ted

to

the

Attorney

General

a

signed

proposed

i n i t i a t i v e p e t i ti o n e n t i t l e d "An I n i t i a t i ve Pe t i t i on

for a Law Rela t ive

to

Ending Common Core Educat ional

Standards ( the Pet i t ion ) . (SAF ~ 2 ) .

The

Attorney

General

numbered the

Pe t i t i on

as I n i t i a t i ve Pe t i t i on

No . 15 -

12

. ( SAF 2 ) .

The Pe t i t i on proposes

th ree d i s t i nc t

ac t ions .

Fi r s t ,

the Pe t i t i on

seeks

to rescind the

Ju ly

2010

vote of the Board r e l a t i v e

to

the

Common

Core

Sta t e

Standards . Second, the

Pe t i t i on

seeks to amend

G.L.

c . 69, §1D to amend the procedure

for

the Board to

adopt

future

curr iculum

frameworks.

Fina l ly , the

Pe t i t i on

seeks to

amend

G.L.

c . 69,

§1I to requi re

t ha t the Commonwealth

re l ease annual ly a l l t e s t

mate r i a l s , inc lud ing a l l quest ions ,

from

the

Commonwealth's diagnost ic assessments .

On

September

2,

2015, the

Attorney

General

c e r t i f i e d t ha t the

Pe t i t i on was in

the p roper

form

for

submission to the people and

met

the requirements

under

Ar t i c l e

48,

I I (The I n i t i a t i ve ) . (SAF ~ 3 ) . The

Attorney

General

a l so

prepared a summary

of the

- 7 -


14/115

Pe t i t i on to be used with the forms for gather ing

addi t i ona l s igna tures . (SAF ~ 4 ) .

The

Secre tary

of the

Commonwealth subsequent ly

prepared

and

d i s t r i bu t ed

blank

s ignature

forms

for

c i r cu l a t i on by the Pet i t ioner s . (SAF ~ 6 ) . The

Pe t i t i one r s have submit ted to the Secre tary

forms

conta in ing the

necessary

addi t i ona l s igna tu res to

r equ i r e

the t ransmiss ion of the

Pe t i t i on to the

Legis la ture . (SAF

~ 7 ) . I f

the Pet i t ioner s

submit

fu r ther s u f f i c i e n t

addi t i ona l s igna tu res to the

Secre tary by

the

f i r s t

Wednesday

in Ju ly

t h i s

year ,

the Secre ta ry in tends to p r i n t the Pe t i t i on on

the

b a l l o t for p resen ta t ion to the

people

in

November.

(SAF ~ 9 ) .

SUMMARY

OF ARGUMENT

1 . Ar t i c l e 48 l imi t s the i n i t i a t i ve pe t i t i on to

proposed laws and

cons t i t u t i ona l

amendments.

Sect ion

1 of

the Pe t i t i on seeks to

rescind a vote of

the

Board.

A

dec la ra t ion r esc ind ing

a

vote

of the

Board

i s

not a

law for purposes

of

Art i c l e 48. This

Court

has

he ld

t ha t a

law i s

a measure

with b inding

e f fec t

or as import ing a

genera l

ru l e of conduct with

appropr ia te means for i t s

enforcement ,

Mazzone

v.

At torney Gen., 432 Mass. 515, 530 (2000) . Under G.L.

- 8 -


15/115

c . 69, the Board has broad d i s c r e t i on to develop and

adopt

cur r icu lum frameworks. Sect ion 1 does noth ing

to l imi t the Board ' s d i s c r e t i on

over

the

Commonwealth's

cur ren t

frameworks,

but

merely seeks

to

undo how the

Board

has exerc ised t h i s

discre t ion .

(p.

11-17) .

2. The Pe t i t i on does not

propose

a law

because

even

if

an

i n i t i a t i v e

p e t i t i o n could resc ind

a

vote of

an

execut ive

en t i t y

- which

it cannot

- the vote the

Pe t i t i on seeks

to

r e sc ind had no opera t ive

e f fec t .

The Ju ly 2010

vote

the Pe t i t i on seeks to r e sc ind was

cont ingent upon Massachuset ts augmenting and

customizing the Common Core

Standards.

The Board did

not

adopt

the

new

s tandards

un t i l i t s

December

2010

meet ing .

Because

the

Pe t i t i on

only

resc inds the

cont ingent Ju ly vote , the

Pe t i t i on would

have

no

e f f e c t

on

the

December

vote t ha t ac tua l l y

adopted

the

new Massachuset ts Frameworks

Inco rpora t i ng Common

Core. Sect ion

1 thus

cannot

be charac ter ized

as

a

law

because it i s not binding .

See

Paisner

v. At torney

General,

390

Mass. 593,

601

(1983) . (p. 17-21) .

3. Ar t i c l e 48

l im i t s

an i n i t i a t i ve p e t i t i o n

to

those

subjec t s which are r e l a t ed o r which are

mutua l ly dependent . Art .

48,

I I

(The

I n i t i a t i ve ) ,

§3

- 9 -


16/115

as amended by Art . 74. Relatedness depends on whether

the var ious

sec t ions

of the

Pe t i t i on

enable a vote r

to

af f i rm

or

r e j ec t

the en t i r e pe t i t i on

as

a

un i f i e d

s ta tement

of

publ ic

pol i cy .

Carney

v.

Attorney

Gen.,

447 Mass. 218, 230-31 (2006) . There i s no such

inheren t r e l a t ion between the development of

cur r icu lum

frameworks and

process

by which the s t a t e

conducts d iagnos t i c assessments . By grouping together

two

unre la ted i s sues

whose abs t r ac t

connec t ion i s

the

genera l

f i e ld

of

publ ic

educat ion, the p e t i t i o n

engages

in the very l og ro l l i ng t ha t

the mutual

dependence requirement

was in tended

to

prevent .

(p.

21-32) .

3. The Pe t i t i on

i s

otherwise not in the

proper

form

for

submiss ion

to the people ,

as

the Pe t i t i on

does not

conta in

the r equ i s i t e enact ing

language.

The

enac t ing

language i s

a j u r i sd ic t iona l prerequi s i t e to


by the Attorney General . As such,

the

Attorney

General

e r red in ce r t i f y ing

the

Pe t i t i on . (p.

33-35) 0

-

10

-


17/115

ARGUMENT

I THE PETITION

DOES

NOT

COMPLY WITH

ARTICLE

48

BECAUSE SECTION 1

PROPOSES

NEITHER A

LAW NOR

A CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT

The

Attorney

General

e r r e d in ce r t i f y ing the

Pe t i t i on because it

does

not

propose

a law.

Under

Ar t i c l e

48, [a ]n

i n i t i a t i v e pe t i t i on i s

not the

proper

veh ic le

for enac t ing measures othe r than

cons t i t u t i ona l amendments

o r laws. Mazzone v.

At torney Gen., 432 Mass. 515, 529 (2000) . It i s

wel l

es t ab l i shed

t ha t

i n i t i a t i v e

p e t i t i o n s t h a t f a i l to

propose

a law

must be

r e j ec t ed

for

f a i l i ng to

be in

the

proper

form, because

they

a re beyond the

scope

of

Ar t i c l e

48.

Paisner

v . At torney

Gen., 390

Mass.

593,

598 (1983); Cohen

v. At torney Gen., 357 Mass.

564

(1970);

Opinion

o f

the

Jus t i ces ,

262

Mass.

603

(1928) .

By l imi t ing

the i n i t i a t i v e p e t i t i o n to proposed

laws

and cons t i t u t i ona l

amendments,

Art . 48

i s

more

narrow

than

the power confe r red upon the General Court by c .

1, §1

a r t .

4 of

the

Cons t i t u t ion . Opinion

o f

the

J us t i ce s to the House of Representa t ives , 262

Mass. a t

605.

In cont ras t to Art . 48, t he Dec l a ra t i on of

Rights

author izes the General

Court

to

make, ordain ,

and

es t ab l i s h , a l l manner

of

wholesome and

reasonable

orders , laws, s t a tu t e s , and

ordinances ,

di rec t ions ,

- 11 -


18/115

and

i n s t r uc t i ons , e i t h e r with penal t i es or

without .

Chapter

1 (The Legis la t ive

Power)

,

§1

(The General

Court) ,

a r t . 4.

Sect ion

1

of the

Pe t i t i on

i s

nei ther

a

law

nor

a

cons t i t u t i ona l amendment. This Court has

descr ibed a

law

as

a measure with

binding e f fec t

or

as

import ing

a

genera l ru l e

of

conduct with appropr i a t e

means for i t s enforcement declared by some author i ty

possess ing

sovere ign

power over the subjec t . Mazzone,

432

Mass.

a t 530 ( c i t i n g Opinion

o f

the

Jus t i ces , 262

Mass.

a t

605); Paisner ,

390

Mass.

a t 600( a law i s

binding ) . In

cont ras t , a

law i s

not

a t r ans ien t

sudden

order from

a

super io r

t o o r

concerning

a

p a r t i c u l a r

person;

but something permanent , uniform,

and

unive rsa l .

Cohen

v.

A t t o r n e y

Gen., 357 Mass. 564

a t 570

fn .

5

(1970)

(quot ing

Opinion

o f

the

Jus t i ces ,

66 N.H. 629, 632

(1891)).

Sect ion 1 at tempts

to r e sc ind

a s ing le

spec i f i c

vote taken by the Board ac t ing

pursuant

to

i t s broad

execut ive

a u t ho r i t y .

Yet a

dec la ra t ion

t ha t purpor t s

to

r e sc ind

a

vote

by

the

Board

i s

not a

law

for

purposes of Ar t i c l e 48. Conceivably, an i n i t i a t i ve

pe t i t i on

could seek

to amend

G.L.

c . 69 t o p roh ib i t

ce r t a in curr iculum

s tandards .

Or

an i n i t i a t i ve

- 12 -


19/115

p e t i t i o n

could amend G.L.

c . 69 to l imi t the Board 's

discre t ion

in adopt ing fu ture

curr iculum

s tandards . An

i n i t i a t i ve pe t i t i on could

even t heo re t i ca l ly

r equ i r e

t ha t the

Board

adopt

s pec i f i c cur r icu lum s tandards ,

el iminat ing

the Board 's d i s c r e t i on i n

t h i s

regard .

Any

of these opt ions could

conce ivably

es t ab l i sh a

binding

prospect ive ru l e on the Board. However,

Sect ion 1 does none of these th ings .

The

Leg is la tu re

i n t en t i ona l l y granted

broad

d i s c r e t i on

to the

[B]oard t o ca r ry

out

i t s

r e s pons ib i l i t i e s i n

implementing

G.L. c . 69,

inc luding

d i s c r e t i on

in

the

adopt ion of

academic

s tandards .

See Student

No.

9

v. Board o f Educ. , 440

Mass. 752, 765

(2004).

The

Leg is la tu re

passed the

Massachuset ts Educat ion

Reform

Act

(codi f ied ,

in par t ,

as G.L. c . 69) with a t t en t i on to the f ac t t ha t

the

Leg is la tu re

has ent rus t ed the board with the Act ' s

implementa t ion.

Id .

763. In adopt ing the new

Massachuset ts

Curriculum

Frameworks

in December

2010,

the

Board acted

pursuant to t h i s s t a tu to ry

author i ty .

4

4

Minutes

of the

Regular Meeting

of the

Massachuset ts

Board

of

Elementary and

Secondary

Educat ion

(Dec.

21,

2010)

a t 4 ( The [Board] in accordance with Chapter

69,

Sect ion

1E

of the General Laws

. )

(SAF

- 13 -


20/115

I f

the

people (ac t ing as

the

Legis la ture) wish to

l im i t

the au thor i ty

ent rus t ed to

the

Board,

they

must

do so by pass ing a law t ha t amends the

r e l evan t

provis ions of

Chapter

69

- not

by

ac t ing

r e t rospec t ive ly to

r e sc ind

a vote of the Board

made

pursuant to

i t s

au tho r i t y

to execute

the

laws. Indeed,

in

sharp

cont ras t to Sect ions 2

through

4, which

would

amend

the process by which the Board

may adopt fu ture

frameworks,

i f Sec t ion 1 were adopted, the G.L. c . 69

requirements

regard ing the conten t of the

cu r ren t

s tandards and

frameworks would

remain

e n t i r e l y

unchanged.

5

This Cour t ' s

dec i s ion

in Paisner

i s

i n s t r uc t i ve .

See genera l l y 390

Mass.

593. There, the Court

r e j ec t ed

a

proposed i n i t i a t i v e p e t i t i o n t ha t would

Exhib i t F) ; Minutes of the Specia l

Meeting

of the

Massachuset ts Board of Elementary

and

Secondary

Educat ion

(Ju ly 21, 2010) a t 7 ( The [Board] in

accordance with

Chapter 69,

Sect ions

lD and lE of the

General

Laws. . ) (SAF Exhib i t E) .

5

Sect ions

2 through 4 of the Pe t i t i on cannot conver t

i n t o a law Sec t ion 1 which i s in i t s e l f

i ne f f ec tua l . See Opinion o f the

Just ices ,

262 Mass.

a t

606 (1928) ( f ind ing an i n i t i a t i v e p e t i t i o n did not

propose a law desp i t e inc luding l ega l requirements in

a second sec t ion t h a t was subsid iary and i nc iden ta l

to the main purpose ) .

- 14 -


21/115

have amended

the

opera t ing ru l e s of the House and

Senate , not ing t ha t the

Cons t i tu t ion

gives

each branch

of the

Leg is la tu re the unicameral power to s e t i t s own

i n t e r na l r u l e s .

Id.

a t 599.

The

Court

thus

deemed the

pe t i t i on

unenforceable ,

because the cont inuing power

of the l eg i s l a t ive branch to ignore

the

p e t i t i o n ' s

provis ions and to

determine

i t s

own

procedures would

render the pe t i t i on ' s proposal a nu l l i t y . Id.

a t

600.

The s im i l a r i t i e s

here a re s t r i k ing ,

given t ha t ne i t he r

in Paisner nor in Sect ion 1

here i s the re

a means of

enforc ing the

d i r ec t i ve .

Although

ob l iga ted under

the

Cons t i tu t ion to

execute

the

laws passed by the

Legis la ture ,

the execut ive

branch

a l so has the

cont inuing

power under

the

Cons t i tu t ion to determine

the

most

appropr ia te

manner

in

which

it

wi l l

do

so.

See In re Opinion

o f

the

Just ices ,

302 Mass.

605,

617

(1939)

( The Leg is la tu re , in the exerc i se

of

i t s

funct ions ,

may

pass laws ca l l i ng for ac t ion

by

the

execut ive

department

.

.

I t i s

when

it

at tempts

to

i n t e r f e re

with ac t ion t aken

by the execut ive

department

.

.

under

ex i s t i ng laws, and

thus

to

pro jec t

i t s e l f i n to

a

f i e ld

of ac t ion

which belongs to

- 15 -


22/115


23/115

law

as

def ined

by

the Court in the contex t

of

i n i t i a t i v e pe t i t i ons . For t h i s reason, the Pe t i t i on

should

not

have been ce r t i f i ed .

I I . THE

PETITION

DOES NOT

COMPLY

WITH

ARTICLE

48 BECAUSE SECTION 1

PROPOSES

TO RESCIND

A VOTE WHICH HAD NO OPERATIVE

EFFECT

Furthermore,

the Pe t i t i on i s not a law because

even

i f

an

i n i t i a t i v e

p e t i t i o n

could resc ind

a

vote

of an

execut ive

e n t i t y

- which

it cannot

- the vote the

Pe t i t i on seeks to

rescind

had no opera t ive

e f fec t .

Sect ion 1 of the Pe t i t i on

would

resc ind the vote taken

by

the Board on

Ju ly

21,

2010

r e l a t ive to the Common

Core

Standards .

The

Board, however, d id not adopt

the

Common Core Standards out r igh t on Ju ly 21,

2010.

Ins tead , the Board express ly voted to

adopt

the Common

Core

Standards

cont ingent

upon

[Massachuset ts]

augmenting and customizing the Common Core Sta t e

Standards .

7

See

B l a c k s

Law Dict ionary (9th ed. 2009)

(def in ing cont ingent

as

[p]oss ib l e ;

uncer ta in ;

unpredic tab le or [d]ependent on

something

e l se ;

condi t i ona l ) ; B al l en t i ne s Law

Dict ionary

(3d

ed.

7

Minutes of the Specia l Meeting of

the

Massachuset ts

Board

of Elementary and Secondary

Educat ion (July 21,

2010) a t 7 (SAF Exhib i t E).

- 17 -


24/115

1969)

(def in ing cont ingent

as possib le ,

o r

l i ab le ,

but not ce r t a in to occur ) .

The

Ju ly

minutes i nd ica t e

t ha t Commissioner

Mitchel l

Cheste r

made

c l ea r

before the vote

t ha t

the

Board would not adopt any f i na l cur r icu lum

s tandards

u n t i l a f t e r

the

Board had

received

recommendations

regard ing augmentat ion .

8

The

Ju ly vote d i r e c t e d

the

Commissioner to presen t to the Board no l a t e r than

October

2010

the

f i na l Common

Core

Sta t e Standards

inc luding

the M assachuse t ts - spec i fi c augmentat ion for

the Board 's

approval .

9

Only " [u] pon approval

by

the

Board would t ha t augmented document

become

the new

Massachuset ts

Curriculum Frameworks.

10

Indeed,

the

Board did not

adopt

the new s tandards

un t i l i t s December

2010

meeting, when the Board

approved

t he

new Massachuset ts

Curriculum Framework

fo r Engl ish Language Arts and Literacy ,

Incorpora t ing

8

Minutes

of the Specia l

Meeting of the Massachuset ts

Board

of Elementary and Secondary

Educat ion ( Ju ly 21,

2010) a t

6 ( The commissioner s a i d the

recommendations

wi l l

come

back

to t he

Board,

input

wi l l

be

sought

from

educa tors s ta tewide ,

and then

the

Board

wi l l

adopt

the

f i na l s tandards ) (SAF

Exhibi t E).

9

Id .

a t

8.

10

Id .

a t

8.

-

18

-


25/115

the

Common

Core Sta t e Standards and

the

new

Massachuset ts

Curriculum Framework for

Mathematics,

Incorpora t ing the Common

Core

Sta t e

Standards .

11

Because

the

Pe t i t i on

only

resc inds the

cont ingent

Ju ly

vote,

the

Pe t i t i on

would

have no

e f f e c t on the December

vote

t ha t a c t u a l l y adopted the

new

Massachuset ts

Frameworks

Incorpora t ing Common

Core.

Nor was

the Ju ly

vote a

s t a tu to r y pre r e qu i s i t e

to

the December

vote . The

Board was au thor i zed to adopt

the

new Massachuset ts Curriculum Frameworks

Inco rpora t i ng

Common

Core in December

2010

regard less

of

whether the

Board

had previously voted in pr inc ip l e

to adopt

Common

Core

cont ingent

upon augmentation.

Rescinding

the Ju ly vote

i s

merely an

express ion

of

d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with an

unrequi red in termedia te

procedura l

s t ep the Board took in exerc i s ing i t s

a u t ho r i t y to evalua te , develop , and adopt

new

cur r icu lum

frameworks. See G.L. c . 69, §§1D &1E.

I f

the Pe t i t i on were enacted,

it would be

no more

than

a

mere nonbinding

express ion of opin ion ,

and the

Court

11

Minutes of the

Regular

Meeting of the

Massachuset ts

Board of Elementary

and

Secondary

Education

(Dec. 21,

2010)

a t

3-4

(SAF Exhib i t F).

-

19

-


26/115

has made

c l ea r t ha t

such p leb i sc i t e s

are not

appropr ia te sub jec t s fo r i n i t i a t i v e

pe t i t i ons . See

Paisner , 390 Mass.

a t

601 ( [ t]hus the i n i t i a t i ve

proposed

here

should

not

be

charac ter ized

as

a

law

because it i s not binding ) .

Nor i s the spec i f i c

vote

the Pe t i t i on seeks to

repeal

sub jec t

to a per fec t ing amendment. Art . 48,

(The I n i t i a t i ve ) , V., §2;

see

a lso

Bowe

v. Secretary

o f the Commonwealth, 320 Mass.

230,

233 (1946) .

Because the Board took subs t an t ive ly d i f f e r en t

ac t ions

with each

of these votes , the

Ju ly and

December votes

are f a r

from in terchangeable .

Indeed, the

December

vote was on a

vers ion

of Common Core

t ha t d i f f e r e d

from

the vers ion cont ingent ly approved in Ju ly to a

su f f i c i en t

ex ten t

t ha t

the

Board found

it

necessary

to

t ake a

separa te

vote

to

author ize approval .

Put

d i f f e ren t ly ,

had

there

been no December vote,

Massachuset ts

would

not

have adopted

the Common Core

Standards ( e i ther

as-modif ied

or

otherwise)

.

The Pe t i t i one r ' s se lec t ion of the wrong

vote i s

unl ike the typographical e r ro r in

Massachuse t t s

Teachers

A s s n v. Secretary o f

the Commonwealth,

in

which

the Court

allowed

a

per fec t ing amendment to the

s t a tu to r y c i t a t i o n being repealed because

the Court

- 20 -


27/115

determined t ha t no one was misled

s ign i f i can t ly

by

the e r r o r i n the

draftsmanship. See

384 Mass. 209,

236-237 (1981). In t h i s case , the s e l ec t i on of the

wrong Board vote

misleads

a

po ten t i a l s ignatory

i n to

be l i ev ing

t ha t

t h e i r suppor t

of the Pe t i t i on wi l l

resc ind the na t iona l Common

Core Standards

t ha t were

debated

a t

the Ju ly 2010 meeting, when the Pe t i t i on

wi l l have

no such l ega l

e f fec t .

The

Pe t i t i on does

not propose

a

law as

defined

by

the

Court in the context

of

i n i t i a t i v e

pe t i t i ons .

As a r e su l t , the Pe t i t i on f a i l s to

comply

with Art i c l e

48, and should

not

have been ce r t i f i ed .

I I I .

THE PETITION DOES NOT

COMPLY

WITH ARTICLE

48 BECAUSE

IT

CONTAINS SUBJECTS THAT ARE

NEITHER RELATED NOR MUTUALLY DEPENDENT

The p la in

language

of

Art i c l e

48 l im i t s

an

i n i t i a t i v e p e t i t i o n

to

those sub jec t s

which are

r e l a t ed o r which

a re

mutual ly

dependent .

Art . 48,

I I

(The I n i t i a t i ve ) , §3 as amended

by

Art .

74.

To

sa t i s fy

the re l a t edness requirement , the

i n i t i a t i ve

must

be

framed

in a

manner

tha t

wi l l permi t

a

reasonable

vo t e r

to

af f i rm or r e j ec t the

en t i r e

p e t i t i o n

as

a uni f i ed

s ta tement

of publ ic

po l i cy .

Carney,

447

Mass.

218, 230-31 (2006) . This

l imi ta t ion

i s

c r i t i c a l

because,

as

the Court

has noted, the

- 21 -


28/115

i n i t i a t i ve p e t i t i o n process does not ,

and

cannot tu rn

every vo te r

i n t o

a

l e g i s l a t o r .

Unlike a

l eg i s l a to r ,

the vo te r

has

no

oppor tuni ty

to modify, amend, o r

nego t i a t e the sec t ions of

a

law

proposed

by

popula r

i n i t i a t i v e . He o r she cannot sever

the

unobjec t ionable from the ob jec t ionab le . Id. a t 230.

Over t ime,

the Court

has r e f ined the

s tandard

for

what c ons t i t u t e s r e l a t ed sub jec t s , to app ropr ia te ly

balance

the

i n t e r e s t s of

pe t i t i one r s to use

the

popula r i n i t i a t i v e

to

br ing

important

mat ters of

concern d i r e c t l y to

t he

e lec to ra te with

the i n t e re s t s

of those

who

would ul t ima te ly

vote

on

the p e t i t i o n

to

avoid

the untenable pos i t i on of

cas t ing a s i n g l e

vote

on two o r

more

d i s s i m i l a r sub jec t s .

Abdow

v.

At torney

Gen., 468 Mass. 478, 499 (2014) . One of the f i r s t

cases

to

address t h i s s tandard

in any

d e t a i l

was

Massachuse t t s

Teachers

Ass n . There, while

the

Cour t

upheld

an

i n i t i a t i v e

p e t i t i o n

because it i den t i f i ed

a

common

purpose

to which each sub jec t

of an

i n i t i a t i v e

p e t i t i o n can

reasonably be sa id to be germane, the

Court

a l so

warned

t ha t

the

purpor ted

common purpose

may not be so broad

as

to render the ' r e l a t e d

subjec t s ' l im i t a t i on

meaning less .

384 Mass. a t

219-

220

(1981) .

- 22 -


29/115

The

Court

then

had

occas ion

to c l a r i fy

t h i s

s tandard in

Carney

v .

At torney

General, a r t i c u l a t i n g

the sa l i en t inquiry as to re la tedness : "Do the

s i m i l a r i t i e s

of

an i n i t i a t i v e ' s

provis ions

dominate

what

each

segment

provides

separa te ly , so t ha t

the

pe t i t i on i s

s u f f i c i e n t l y coherent

to

be voted

on

' yes '

o r ' no '

by the voters?

447 Mass.

218 a t 226

(2006) .

In othe r words,

[ t ]o

c l ea r

the

r e l a t edness

hurdle ,

the

i n i t i a t i v e

pe t i t i on must

express

an opera t iona l

re l a t edness among i t s subs tan t ive pa r t s t ha t would

permi t a reasonable

vote r

to

a f f i rm or r e j ec t the

en t i r e pe t i t i on

as

a un i f i e d

s ta tement

of publ ic

pol i cy . Id.

a t

230-31.

The

Court fur the r c l a r i f i e d

t ha t

[ i ] t i s not enough t ha t

the

provis ions

in

an

i n i t i a t i v e

pe t i t i on

a l l

' r e l a t e '

to some same

broad

t op ic

a t

some conce ivable l eve l of abs t rac t ion . Id.

a t 230.

The holdings in Carney and Abdow i l l u s t r a t e

how

the opera t iona l re l a t edness

t e s t i s

to be implemented

i n p r ac t i ce .

In

Carney,

the

Attorney General

c e r t i f i e d

an

i n i t i a t i v e

p e t i t i o n

t ha t

would

have

both

(i) s t r eng thened

pena l t i e s

for animal c rue l ty ; and

( i i )

abol ished

par imutuel

dog

rac ing

in the

Commonwealth. Id.

a t

220-21.

In

so doing, the

- 23 -


30/115

Attorney General found t ha t those two provis ions

s a t i s f i e d

the

re la tedness

requirements of

Art i c l e

48

because

they were r e l a t ed

genera l ly

to promoting the

more

humane

t rea tment

of

dogs . Id.

a t 224.

The

Court

disagreed,

concluding:

The vote r

who

favors inc reas ing cr iminal

pena l t i e s for

animal

abuse should be

permi t ted

to

r eg i s t e r

the

c l ea r pre fe rence without a l so being

r equ i r ed to favor e l imina t ing par imutue l dog

rac ing . Conversely,

the vote r who

th inks

tha t

the cr iminal pena l t i e s

for animal abuse

s t a tu t e s

a re s t rong enough should

not be

requi red to vote

in

favor

of

extending

the

reach

of

our

cr iminal

laws because he favors abol ish ing par imutuel dog

r ac ing .

Id.

a t

231.

As expla ined below, the Pe t i t i on here i s ne i the r

a uni f i ed s ta tement of

publ ic

pol icy

nor does it

have a coherent common

purpose among i t s provis ions .

As

such,

the

Pe t i t i on f a i l s

the

r e l a t edness

requirement

of Art ic le

48, and cannot

be

ce r t i f i ed .

A

Diagnost ic

Assessments Do

Not

Share A Common

Purpose

with

Curriculum Frameworks

The Pe t i t i on

f a i l s to sa t i s fy

the

s ine qua non

of

re l a t edness

as

es t ab l i shed by the Court:

the

demonst ra t ion of an opera t ional re la tedness among

i t s

subs tan t ive

pa r t s t ha t

would

permit

a

reasonable

vote r t o

a f f i rm

o r r e j ec t the

en t i r e

p e t i t i o n

as

a

un i f i e d s ta tement of publ ic pol i cy . Carney, 447 Mass.

a t

230-31.

Even a cursory

review

of the Pe t i t i on

-

24

-


31/115

i nd ica t e s

t h a t

it

l acks a coherent common

purpose

among i t s prov i s ions .

Sect ion 1

through

Sect ion 3 arguably r e l a t e to

the adopt ion and c rea t ion of educat ional s tandards and

curr iculum frameworks, inc luding an e f f o r t to r e j ec t a

spec i f i c

cur r icu lum framework,

the Common Core. In

cont ras t , Sec t ion 4 r e l a t e s to the l og i s t i c s

sur rounding the publ ic re l ease

of

t e s t

ques t ions ,

model answers , and

othe r

d iagnos t i c

assessment

mate r i a l s .

The

Court has

c lea r ly a r t i cu la t ed

t ha t

the

purpor ted common

purpose may

not be

so broad as to

render

the re l a t edness l im i t a t i on 'meaningless . '

Carney,

447

Mass. a t 225

(quoting

Massachuse t t s

Teachers Ass n , 384 Mass. a t 219).

Jus t

as

Carney

he ld

t ha t

banning

par imutue l

dog

rac ing

was

i n s u f f i c i e n t l y r e l a t ed under Ar t i c l e 48 to

the de s i r e to prevent animal

c rue l ty ,

447 Mass.

a t

230-31, the apparent

subjec t ive motive of improving

publ ic

educa t ion

genera l ly i s

i n su f f i c i en t to

c l ea r

the opera t iona l re l a t edness hurdle here . Although

both

curr iculum s tandards

and d iagnos t i c

t e s t ing

may

f a l l

under

the

genera l f i e ld

of

publ ic

educat ion, the Court

has been

resoundingly

c l ea r t ha t the re la tedness

t e s t i s

not s a t i s f i e d by a pronouncement of

the

- 25 -


32/115

p e t i t i o n e r ' s broad

ex t r i n s i c worldview

a t

some

conceivable l eve l

of

abs t rac t ion .

Carney, 447 Mass.

a t 230. See

a lso Opinion

o f

the

Jus t i ces ,

422

Mass. a t

1220-21

(no

di sce rn ib l e

common

purpose

in

forc ing

vo te r s to

both

increase

l e g i s l a t i v e

accountab i l i t y and

permi t Inspector General to access

records of the

commissioner of

ve te ran se rv i ces ) .

By grouping together two pola r i z ing

ye t

un re la ted

i ssues

involv ing the genera l f i e l d of educat ion,

the

Pe t i t i one r s

seek

to

motiva te

two

unre la ted

cons t i t uenc ie s in support of the

In i t i a t i ve : vo te r s

who

a re opposed to

the Common

Core Standards, and

vo te r s who a re c r i t i c a l

of

s tandard ized

t e s t ing .

This

i s

pr ec i s e ly the type of logro l l ing

the

mutual

dependence

requirement

of

Art .

48

was

in tended

to

prevent . l

2

See

Massachuse t t s

Teachers

Ass n , 384 Mass.

a t

219

n.

9 ( c i t ing Debates in the

Massachuset ts

Cons t i t u t iona l

Convention 1917-1918, Vol.

2,

856

l

2

Logrol l ing

i s

def ined as [ t ]

he

l eg i s l a t ive

pr ac t i ce of inc luding

severa l p roposi t ions

in one

measure

o r proposed

cons t i t u t i ona l

amendment so

t ha t

the l e g i s l a t u r e

o r vo te r s

wi l l

pass

a l l of

them, even

though

these proposi t ions might not have passed i f

they

had

been

submit ted sepa ra t e ly . Carney,

447 Mass.

a t 219, fn .

4 ( c i t i ng

Black 's

Law Dict ionary

960 (8 th

ed. 2004) ) .

- 26 -


33/115

(1918)) ;

see a lso Abdow

v.

At torney

Gen.,

468

Mass.

478, 503

(2014) (a l though not dispos i t ive , [e]v idence

of

d i f f e r i ng

mot ivat ions

i s re l evant to the

re l a t edness ana lys i s ,

because

it

might

bear

on

the

l i ke l ihood

of

l og r o l l i ng ) .

There

i s

no inheren t connect ion

between

spec i f i c

curr iculum frameworks on

one

hand and the re l ease of

t e s t quest ions ,

model

answers, and

o the r d iagnos t i c

assessment mate r i a l s on the othe r . Curriculum

frameworks

def ine

what s tuden t s

a re expected

to

know

and be ab le

to do a t

ce r t a in grade l eve l s . These

s tandards

can

ex i s t

independent

of

any

s ta tewide

s tandard ized

assessment . See, e .g . , Massachuset ts

Department

of

Elementary and

Secondary

Educat ion ,

Massachuset ts

Curriculum

Frameworks

for

Engl ish

A r t s

and Li t e racy (March

2011) ( While the s tandards

de l inea t e s pec i f i c expecta t ions in

reading,

wri t ing ,

speaking,

l i s t en ing

and language, each s tandard

need

not

be a

separa te

focus for i n s t r uc t i on and

assessment

(emphasis suppl ied)) .

13

In cont ras t , the

13

Massachuset ts Department of Elementary and Secondary

Educat ion ,

Massachuset ts Curriculum

Frameworks

for

Engl ish A r t s and Li t e racy (March 2011)

a t

4, fu l l t ex t

ava i l ab l e a t

-

27

-


34/115

re l ease

of t e s t ques t ions and

model responses

r a i ses

unre l a t ed po l i cy choices about

how

s tudent achievement

i s

measured under

spec i f i c

c i rcumstances .

Decis ions

regard ing the

development,

process ,

and

genera l

e f f i cacy

of s tandard ized t e s t ing would a r i s e

r ega rd less

of the spec i f i c

cur r icu lum

frameworks ( i f

any) t ha t a re

in

p lace .

The Department of Elementary and Secondary

Educat ion i t s e l f recognizes

the

inhe ren t d i f f e rence

in

these

two

pol i cy areas by

maintaining

d i f f e r en t

div i s ions for

each

of these topics : the

Center

for

Curr iculum and Ins t ruc t ion develops the Massachuset ts

Curriculum Frameworks, while the Off ice of Student

Assessment

develops the

Massachuset ts

Comprehensive

Assessment Systems.

14

These

top ics a r e only

as r e l a t ed

as

any othe r

of the

numerous i s sues t ha t may impact

s tuden t performance,

inc luding , bu t not

l imi ted to :

c l a s s

s ize ,

school d i s t r i c t i ng , teacher ce r t i f i c a t i on

ht tp :/ /www.doe .mass . edu/ frameworks /e la /0311.pdf

(accessed Mar. 4, 2016) (Addendum C a t ADD-27).

14

Massachuset ts Department of Elementary and Secondary

Educat ion ,

Organizat ional

Chart

(March 2015),

ava i l ab l e

a t

ht tp : / /www.doe.mass .edu/contact /orgchar t .pdf (accessed

Mar. 4, 2016) (Addendum D

a t

ADD-35).

- 28 -


35/115

requirements , and

the

school lunch

program.

Each

of

these

o the r i s sues engenders s t rong

opinions

among

those concerned about t h e i r

impact on

s tudent

achievement ,

but

each

opera tes

independent ly of

one

another . None would r igh t ly be cons idered

opera t iona l ly

re l a t ed to

cur r icu lum

s tandards for

purposes

of Ar t i c l e 48.

I f

the Pe t i t i one r s

be l i eve

t ha t the

vo te r s should

l e g i s l a t e

a

so lu t ion to the

perceived problem of

inadequate educa t iona l

s tandards and

cur r icu lum

frameworks,

Art ic le

48 r equ i r es

t ha t

vote rs

be

en t i t l ed to

make

such

a

dec i s ion without a l s o being

forced to

render simultaneous judgment

on

the

wisdom

of

annual ly

re l eas ing to the publ ic

a l l

mate r i a l s

r e l a t ed t o

d iagnos t i c

assessments .

Applying

the

Carney

and

Abdow s tandards in

the

con tex t

here ,

a

reasonable

Massachuset ts vote r wi l l be p laced in the

untenable pos i t i on of cas t ing a s ing le vote

on

two

or

more dis s imi la r

subjec ts given

t ha t

resc ind ing

the

Common

Core Standards i s mutua l ly

unre l a t ed

to

mandating changes

in how diagnost ic assessments are

developed

and

d isc losed .

See Abdow,

468 Mass. a t 499.

Indeed, it i s

not

d i f f i c u l t to conceive of vot ing

educators

and

paren t s

who bel ieve s t rongly t ha t both

- 29 -


36/115

a) it i s in

the

be s t i n t e r e s t

of

t h e i r s tudents and

ch i ld ren to

mainta in the

(Massachuset ts -modif ied)

Common

Core

Standards ,

and

s imul taneously b)

suppor t

the

re l ease

of

a l l

t e s t

i tems

and

ques t ions

r e l a t ed

to

d iagnost ic assessments as a l so

being

in

the bes t

i n t e r e s t of

t h e i r students .

and

ch i ld ren .

Al te rna t ive ly ,

it

i s

not

d i f f i c u l t to conceive

of a

f i s ca l l y conserva t ive vote r who, while ph i losoph ica l ly

opposed to the Common Core Standards as a mat t e r of

educat ion

po l i cy ,

does not want

the

Commonwealth

to

make the s ubs t an t i a l

annual appropr ia t ion

of

tax

do l l a r s

t ha t

would be

requi red

to

develop

a complete ly

new

se t of

new

t e s t

ques t ions every year . Where

the

Pe t i t i on here

does not

permit a reasonable vote r

to

a f f i rm

o r

r e j ec t the

en t i r e

p e t i t i o n as

a

uni f i ed

s tatement

of publ ic pol i cy , Carney, 447 Mass.

a t

230-

31, Ar t i c l e 48 pr oh ib i t s

i t s c e r t i f i c a t i o n

as

a mat ter

of law.

Nor

i s Mazzone

v . At torney Gen., 432 Mass. 515

(2000) to the

con t r a ry .

In

fac t ,

the p e t i t i o n

a t

i s sue

in Mazzone

only

highl igh t s

the opera t ional

re la tedness

t ha t

i s conspicuous ly

absent here . In

Mazzone,

the s t a t ed

purpose

of the

p e t i t i o n was to

expand the scope of the

commonwealth 's

drug t rea tment

- 30 -


37/115

program and provide funding through f ines

for

drug

v io l a t i ons and the f o r f e i t u r e

of

asse t s used

in

connec t ion wi th drug

of fenses .

Id.

a t

517-18.

The

c r i t i c a l

d i f f e rence

i s

t ha t

in Mazzone,

t he re was a c l ea r l i nea r opera t ional

re la tedness

between the

problem addressed ( l imi ted e l i g i b i l i t y

for

drug

t reatment)

and

the

appropr ia t ion

of

funding

( to

pay for

drug

t rea tment expansion) . No

s imi l a r nexus

ex i s t s

here between

the

a l l eged problem

of the

adopt ion of spec i f i c

curr iculum frameworks, and the

a l l eged problem of

i n su f f i c i en t

publ ic a v a i l a b i l i t y

of t e s t mate r i a l s fo r whatever

comprehensive

d iagnos t i c assessment

system the

Commonwealth chooses

to u t i l i z e .

Nor

i s

it

of

re levance

t ha t

the

ex i s t i ng

requi rements for

the

adopt ion

of

curr iculum

frameworks

and the s t a tu to r y requirements for the

Commonwealth's

d iagnos t i c assessment

were both

adopted by

the

General

Court as

pa r t

of the

same

l eg i s l a t ion . See

Massachuset ts Educat ion Reform

Act,

St . 1993, c . 71.

As t h i s

Court

has observed,

l eg i s l a to r s -

unl ike

vo te r s

- are

ab l e to

modify, amend,

or nego t i a t e

the

sec t ions

of a

law. Carney, 447 Mass. a t 230. As

a

consequence, laws passed

by

the

Leg is la tu re

do not

-

31

-


38/115

face the same r e l a t edness l im i t a t i ons t ha t the

dr a f t e r s

of Ar t i c l e 48 deemed necessary and

appropr ia te for the

popula r

i n i t i a t i v e . That two

top ics

were

addressed

in

the

same

p iece

of

l eg i s l a t ion

before

the General Court i s not evidence of t he i r

r e l a t edness

for

purposes

of Ar t i c l e 48.

In shor t , the re i s s imply no common purpose

expressed by the Pet i t ion . See Carney

a t

230-31. The

Pe t i t i on inc ludes two d i s c r e t e pol i cy pre fe rences t ha t

are not su f f i c i en t ly coherent to be voted on ' ye s ' o r

'no ' by the

vote rs .

Id. a t

226.

A reasonable vote r

may

pr e f e r

keeping

the Common Core Standards

while

re l eas ing

a l l t e s t i tems

from the s t a t e ' s diagnost ic

assessment , o r

vice versa .

He or

she cannot

cons t i t u t i ona l l y

be

made

to accept

the poison p i l l

of

vot ing for

both, o r ne i the r ,

when the

i s sues do

not

share

anyth ing

more

than an abs t r ac t re la tedness .

Carney a t

230-31.

- 32 -


39/115

IV.

THE

PETITION DOES NOT COMPLY

WITH

ARTICLE

48

BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE

REQUISITE ENACTING LANGUAGE

The

Attorney

General

should

not have ce r t i f i ed

the

Pe t i t i on

because

the

Pe t i t i on

does

not include

the

r equ i s i t e enac t ing language.

The enac t ing s ty l e of a l l measures submit ted to

the

people

in

pursuance

of an

i n i t i a t i v e

p e t i t i o n

for

a law sha l l be:

Be

it enacted by the

People,

and EY

t he i r au thor i ty . G.L. c . 4, §3 (emphases

added).

The

inc lus ion

of t h i s exact language in an i n i t i a t i ve

p e t i t i o n i s

not

opt iona l . The Court has

held

t ha t

the

words

of a s t a tu t e a re to be

accorded t h e i r

ordinary

meaning

arid

approved usage, and

[ t ]he

word ' s ha l l ' i s

or d ina r i l y i n t e r p r e t ed as having

a mandatory

or

impera t ive

ob l i ga t i on .

Hashimi

v.

Kali l ,

388

Mass.

607,

609 (1983).

Yet here , the Pe t i t i on says

in s tead ,

Be it

enac ted by the people

and

t he i r

a u t ho r i t y .

The

f a i l u r e of the Pet i t ioner s to

include

the second

i t e r a t i on of

the

word by in the enact ing language

i s

not close

enough

to

the

mandatory language

there

i s

no

de

min imis s tandard

for

e r r o r t ha t the Attorney

General or the Court

i s

empowered

to over look

in

t h i s

regard.

- 33 -


40/115

The Leg is la tu re has ind ica ted on

numerous

occasions t ha t

it

i s

capable of i nd ica t ing when

language

i s

i l l u s t r a t i v e and when it

i s

mandatory. In

numerous

othe r

contexts

r e l a t ed

t o pu t t i ng

ques t ions

to

the

publ ic for a vote , the

Leg is la tu re has a l lowed

for

phras ing

in s ubs t an t i a l l y the fo l lowing form. "

15

By

cont ra s t , the Legis la ture did not

permi t

the

enact ing language for i n i t i a t i ve pe t i t i ons to be in

subs tan t i a l ly the

fol lowing

form but , ins tead, chose

to use the

word

sha l l . [W]here the

Leg is la tu re

has

carefu l ly

employed

a term in one place

and excluded

it

in

another , it should

not

be

implied

where

excluded.

Town o f Canton v. Comm'r o f Mass. Highway

Dep t , 455

Mass. 783,

789 (2010)

( in t e rna l quota t ion omit ted) .

Nor

can t h i s omiss ion

be

cured

through

a

so-

c a l l e d per fec t ing

amendment

(per

Ar t i c l e

81,

§3)

a t

some

l a t e r s tage in the process . Art ic le 48, §3

r equ i r es t ha t

the

Attorney General c e r t i f y t ha t

the

15

See,

e .g . G.L.

c . 40N, §25 (adoption of reg ional

water d i s t r i c t s

on pr i n t e d

ba l lo t s a t

town meet ings) ;

G.L. c.

43B, §15

(pe t i t i ons

to

r ev i se

or

amend

a

c i t y

or town cha r t e r ) ;

G.L. c .

43C, §5 (pe t i t ions

to adopt

an

opt ional

form of

municipal

admini s t ra t ion) ;

G.L.

c .

71, §15

(adoption of a reg ional

school

d i s t r i c t

by

the

e lec tora t e ) .

-

34

-


41/115

measure

as

submit ted

for


i s

in

the

proper

form

for submiss ion to the people

(emphases

supplied) . Compliance with the s t a tu to r y mandate of

G.L.

c .

4,

§3

as

to

form

i s

thus

a

j u r i sd ic t iona l

pr e r equ i s i t e to

c e r t i f i c a t i o n by

the Attorney

General .

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons , the

Pla in t i f f s /Appel lan t s reques t t ha t the Court ente r an

order

dec la r ing

t ha t the Pe t i t i on

does

not meet the

requirements under

Ar t i c l e 48 to be placed

on

the

ba l lo t . Pla in t i f f s /Appel lan t s fu r ther reques t

t ha t

t h i s

Court

en jo in

the

Attorney General

and the

Secre ta ry

of the Commonwealth

from

t ak ing any

fur the r

ac t ions

to permi t

t h i s

Pe t i t i on

from being

placed

on

the November 2016

s t a t e

e l ec t i on

ba l lo t .

Respec t fu l l y submit ted,

STEPHANIE

GRAY, ROBERT

ANTONUCCI,

BILL WALCZAK,

DIANNE KELLY,

B.

JOHN DILL, KALIMAH RAHIM,

APRIL

WEST,

BEVERLY·HOLMES, JACINTHE

ALBANI, and VANESSA CALDERON

ROSADO,

Kevin C.

Conroy No.

644894)

Thaddeus A.

Heuer (BBO

No. 666730)

Andrew

M. London (BBO

No.

690782)

FOLEY HOAG

LLP

Seapor t World Trade

Center

West

-

35

-


42/115

155

Seapor t

Boulevard

Boston,

MA 02210-2600

617-832-1000

kconroy®foleyhoag.com

[email protected]

alondon®foleyhoag.com

Date: March

7, 2016

- 36 -


43/115

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I , Andrew London, counsel for

Pla in t i f f s ,

hereby

c e r t i f y

pursuant

to

Mass. R. App. P. 16(k) on t h i s 7th

day

of

March

2016,

t ha t

the

foregoing

br i e f

complies

with

the ru les of

cour t t ha t

pe r t a in to the

f i l i ng

of

br i e f s ,

inc luding ,

but

not

l imi ted

to Mass. R.A.P.

16(a)

(6)

(pe r t i nen t

f ind ings

or memorandum

of

dec i s ion) ; Mass. R.A.P. 16(e) ( references

to the

record) ;

Mass.

R.A.P. (reproduct ion of s t a tu t e s ,

ru les ,

and regula t ions ) ; Mass. R.A.P. 16(h)

( length

of

br i e f s ) ; Mass. R.A.P.

19 (appendix

to

the

br i e f s ) ; and

Mass.

R.A.P. 20 (form of

br i e f s ,

appendices ,

and

o the r

papers)

.

Andrew

M.

London

-

37

-


44/115

CERTIFICATE

OF

SERVICE

I , Andrew London, hereby c e r t i f y t ha t

on

t h i s

7th

day of

March 2016, I

se rved

two t rue

copies of the

fo rego ing br i e f and addendum

via

hand de l ive ry upon:

Ass i s t an t

Attorney Genera l

Ju l i ana

deHaan Rice

Off ice

o f the Attorney General

One Ashbur ton Place

Boston, MA

02108

Date:

March 7, 2016

Andrew

M.

London

-

38

-


45/115

ADDENDUM A

ADD-1


46/115

...-....

.

uevelopment J;Jrocess

The state-led

effort to

develop

the

Common Core State Standards was launched in

2009

by st

leaders, including governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states. two territor

corntrlurl

corc-c;t;.:Jic·',t


47/115

•

First

the

college-

and career-readiness

standards

which address

what

students are

expected

to

know and understand by the time they graduate from high school

• Second the K-12 standards which address expectations for elementary school through high

school

college- and career-readiness standards were developed first and then incorporated into the

standards in

the

final version

of

the Common Core

we

have today. The National Governors

on (NGA) and

the

Council Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) received nearly 10,000

two public comment periods. Many of the comments from

trators, and other citizens concerned with education policy helped

e the final version

of the

standards.

played a critical role

in

development

Core

State Standards drafting process relied on teachers and standards experts from

were involved in

the

development process in four ways:

1) They served on the Work Groups and Feedback Groups

for

the ELA and math standards.

))

The National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT),

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), and National Council of Teachers of

English (NCTE), among other organizations were instrumental in bringing together

teachers to provide specific, constructive feedback on the standards

n Teachers were members of teams states convened to provide regular feedback on drafts

of

the standards.

11) Teachers provided

input

on the Common Core State Standards during the two public

comment periods.

Complete Timeline

NOVEMBER 2007:

State chiefs discuss

developing

common standards

during

CCSSO's Annual Policy Forum in

Columbus, Ohio.

ADD-3


48/115

2008 ()

DE

,..E'-ADI:'R

'ln08·

............... .., .

NGA, CCSSO, and Achieve release Benchmarking

for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students

Receive a World-Class

d u c a t i Q J l 1 h t t t J ~ [ / w w v y _ , e c l w e e k . o r g / m e d i a / b e n c h m a k r i n g

for

success dec 2008 final.pdf). The report, guided by an advisory group

that

included

governors, state education chiefs, and leading education researchers, recommended s

"upgrade state standards by adopting a common core of internationally benchmarked

standards in math and language arts for grades K-12 to ensure that students are equip

with

the necessary knowledge and skills

to

be globally competitive."

2009

()

APRIL2009:

NGA and

CCSSO

convene governors' education policy advisors and chief state school

officers in Chicago

to

discuss creation of the Common Core State Standards Initiative.

result, NGA and CCSSO invite states to commit to a process

to

develop common stand

in English language

arts/literacy

and mathematics. Based on

the

interest

from

states, w

to develop the standards commenced.

MAY2009:

Development begins on the college and career ready standards

to

address

what

studen

are expected to know and understand by the time they graduate

from

high school.

Following

that

work,

an

initial feedback group receives

the

first

draft

of

college and ca

readiness graduation standards

for

review.

JUNE2009:

CCSSO and

NGA

announce (http://www.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/news-

rel

eases/QQg_


49/115

SUMM R 2009:

To prepare

to

develop the grade

by

grade standards based on the college and career

readiness standards, steps are taken

to

organize the development and review process.

Formal work groups and feedback groups

(http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/2010COMMONCOREK:l2TEAM.PDF)

are created to develop and review the K-12 standards. Teachers were involved in the

work

groups and at every stage of review.

SEPTEMBER 2009:

NGA and

CCSSO

release (http://www.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/news

releasesLp


50/115

FEBRUARY 2010:

Revised version of K-12 grade by grade college and career readiness standards distrib

to states.

MARCH2010:

CCSSO

and NGA release (http://www.nga.org/cms/homejnews-room/news

releases/page

20

10/col2-content/mZlin-cpnimlt-1

istltit e

cl raft- k-12-cornmon-core-sta

standards-available-for-comment.htmlldraft K-12 grade by grade college and career

readiness standards for public comment on www.corestandards.org

(http:Uwww.corestandards.org/). Educators and members of the public provide comm

summarized ~ r . = _ ( b t t p _ ; . L L _ w \ I Y W , . , S : o r c s t a n c a r d s _ , o r g / 0 . s s e t s / k - 1 2 - f e e d b a c k - s u m m a r y , p d ) 1

JUNE2010:

NGA and CCSSO release (http:Uwww.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/news

releases/page

2010/col2-conteo1Lmain-content-listLtitle

national-governors-associat

il J..d..:state-educ.ation-chiefs-l_aun


51/115

2012 ()

States and

territories

undergo their own processes

for

reviewing, adopting, and (in some

states) ratifying

the adoption of the Common Core State Standards. In each case, after

reviewing the new standards, state boards

of

education members, governors, legislators,

and/or chief state school officers

took

action

to

replace

their

existing standards

with

the

Common Core State Standards.

2013 ()

As

of

December

2013,

45 states, the Department

of

Defense Education Activity,

Washington D.C., Guam,

the Northern

Mariana Islands and the

U.S.

Virgin Islands have

adopted

SJC-12064 01 Appellant Gray Brief

Documents

Transcript of SJC-12064 01 Appellant Gray Brief