News
Harvard Law Students Banned From Library Over Study-In, HOOP Says at Rally
News
House Committee Reveals Private Deliberations Behind Harvard’s Disastrous October 9 Statement
News
Matt Damon, Mike Bloomberg Weigh In On MCAS Ballot Question
News
Ivy League to Consider Allowing Football Teams to Play in Postseason
News
Despite Resident Fears, City Officials Optimistic About Impact of Multifamily Zoning
The Massachusetts State Legislature is one of the country’s worst. A “yes” vote on Ballot Question 1 could begin to change that by empowering the State Auditor to break open the black box and see what’s going wrong inside.
It’s difficult to overstate how intransparent the State House really is. It’s not subject to open meeting laws, its committee votes can remain private, and the conference committees that finalize bills do so in secret. No wonder Massachusetts has often found itself ranked last in state legislature transparency.
You might think a Democratic supermajority paired with a Democratic governor would mean fewer disagreements and more effective governance. You’d be wrong. This year alone, the legislative session ended without a vote on key bills on climate, economic development, and maternal health that had been months in the making.
This dysfunction also results from an excess of centralized power. House and Senate leaders control committee appointments and legislative priorities, leaving individual representatives hesitant to dissent. The result? Top state legislators are accountable to no one, and routinely fall short.
Enter the State Auditor. The office has identified $1.4 billion in wasted or misspent government funds since 2011, but it currently has no power to oversee the Massachusetts State Legislature. Voting “yes” on Question 1 would offer a vital course correction, extending the State Auditor’s reach where it’s desperately needed.
It’s a speculative measure, sure — Question 1 would likely face a number of hurdles if passed — but it’s clearly better than nothing. The State House isn’t going to scrutinize itself.
This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.
Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.