A Suffolk County decide dismissed a lawsuit from former MassGOP Chair Jim Lyons that requested an area courtroom to declare a voter-approved legislation giving State Auditor Diana DiZoglio the facility to audit the Legislature constitutional and invalidate an inside Home rule on audits.
Suffolk County Superior Court docket Justice Kenneth Salinger’s ruling marks one of many first authorized setbacks for audit legislation supporters who pursue personal lawsuits to pressure an opinion on whether or not DiZoglio’s contentious efforts to analyze the 2 chambers cross constitutional muster.
In a nine-page ruling issued Monday, Salinger mentioned Lyons “does not have legal standing” to deliver claims that an inside rule adopted by the Home within the fall and up to date in February straight undermines the intent of the voters who supported the audit legislation in November.
“Mr. Lyons alleges no facts suggesting that he suffered or likely will suffer any personal harm as a result of a violation of any legal duty owed to him, and he has not identified any applicable exception to these general requirements of standing,” Salinger wrote. “He therefore does not have standing to challenge House Rule 85A, to seek a declaration as to whether the voters’ amendment to the auditor’s statutory authority is constitutional, or to obtain any other relief.”
Lyons mentioned he plans to enchantment the ruling in Superior Court docket and the state’s highest courtroom, the Supreme Judicial Court docket.
“If a voter doesn’t have standing, who does? The people voted 72% to audit the Legislature and our elected officials decided they were going to change the rules. That is simply wrong,” Lyons informed the Herald. “Now, the judge has made his ruling based on standing, and we’re going to aggressively make the argument that we believe we do have standing and this is exactly the process that was set up for the voters if the Legislature isn’t doing what they’re supposed to do.”
A spokesperson for Home Speaker Ron Mariano declined to touch upon the ruling.
The lawsuit was filed as DiZoglio remains to be making an attempt to persuade Lawyer Common Andrea Campbell to greenlight authorized motion towards the Legislature to pressure them to adjust to the audit legislation and as different exterior teams are weighing lawsuits to do the identical.
Lyons’ authorized problem largely targeted on an inside rule the Massachusetts Home first accredited final yr.
Home lawmakers voted 9 days after the November election to amend their very own guidelines to direct the chamber’s enterprise supervisor to rent a personal auditing agency beneficial by the state auditor to conduct an “outside, independent financial audit of the House financial accounts.”
Representatives voted once more in February to revise the rule to take away the enterprise supervisor from the method and as a substitute have the Home Committee on Operations, Amenities, and Safety retain a personal auditing agency beneficial by the auditor.
In his preliminary criticism filed in December, Lyons claimed that the modification to the Home rule “does not allow the auditor to audit the Legislature.”
“Instead, it directs the administrative officials of the House to request an audit from the auditor, who is then allowed to select a neutral private firm which the House will thereafter employ to conduct an audit,” the previous Republican Occasion chair mentioned in a courtroom submitting. “The rule amendment does not anticipate or allow the auditor to directly review financial information about or from the Legislature.”
Lyon’s argument was just like DiZoglio’s personal gripe with the rule change.
In a string of social media posts in November, DiZoglio mentioned Home Democratic leaders have been asking members to “strip away” her workplace’s capacity to conduct an impartial audit.
“Since you’ll still control how much you pay for the audit, what you will allow their scope to be, and what you will allow them to examine or not examine — you’ll be giving yourself control over every aspect of the process which will be overseen by you, and not our office, exempting yourself from oversight — yet again,” she mentioned.
Rep. Danielle Gregoire, who chaired the Home Guidelines Committee final session, mentioned the change demonstrated lawmakers’ “renewed commitment to upholding and respecting the will of the voters.”
“With this proposed rules change, we seek to ensure that any audit pursuant to the passage of question one will be a professional audit, not a political one,” the Marlborough Democrat mentioned shortly after lawmakers accredited the amended rule.
Lyons mentioned the principles change “directly undermines the intent of the voters in allowing the auditor to directly audit the Legislature and expressly confirming her authority to do so.”
Legal professionals for Lyons additionally tried to influence Salinger that he had standing to deliver the lawsuit.
“Amongst other things, he has the right to have his vote counted and not be nullified. He has the right to have a law he supported and campaigned for, which passed the ballot commandingly, become law in accordance with Article 48 (of the state constitution). He has the right to not have his vote nullified by legislative machinations,” an lawyer for Lyons wrote in courtroom paperwork.
However Salinger mentioned Lyons doesn’t have authorized standing to deliver a lawsuit simply because he voted for and stays a proponent of the poll query authorizing audits of the Legislature.
Authorized standing to guard voters’ rights arises in restricted circumstances not related in Lyons’ lawsuit, Salinger mentioned.
“For example, the first ten signers of an initiative or referendum petition have standing to bring suit to ensure that the petition is properly presented to voters,” Salinger mentioned. “This line of cases is not relevant because Question 1 has already been passed by the voters.”
The decide additionally mentioned voters have authorized standing to sue to have their votes be counted and given equal weight, like when a voter in a district that has a disproportionately massive inhabitants has standing to problem the apportionment.
However Salinger mentioned that, too, doesn’t apply on this case as a result of the lawsuit “is not about whether Mr. Lyons’ vote counted or was diluted.”
“Permitting any supporter of a successful ballot initiative to bring suit at any time to enforce the resulting law would be inconsistent with the requirements of standing discussed above,” Salinger wrote in his ruling.
Initially Printed:
