The opinion
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound
volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
SJC-13609
SJC-13610
JOHN SCHNEIDER & others1 vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL & another.2
MAX PAGE & others3 vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL & another.4
Suffolk. May 22, 2024. - June 27, 2024.
Present: Budd, C.J., Gaziano, Kafker, Wendlandt, Georges,
& Wolohojian, JJ.
Initiative. Constitutional Law, Initiative petition. Attorney
General. Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System
Examination.
Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for
the county of Suffolk on May 16, 2024.
The case was reported by Wolohojian, J.
1 Sixty-eight registered voters of the Commonwealth. We
refer to Schneider and the additional sixty-eight voters in case
no. SJC-13609 collectively as the Schneider plaintiffs.
2 Secretary of the Commonwealth.
3 Sixty-five registered voters of the Commonwealth. We
refer to Page and the additional sixty-five voters in case no.
SJC-13610 collectively as the Page plaintiffs.
4 Secretary of the Commonwealth.
2
Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for
the county of Suffolk on May 9, 2024.
The case was reported by Wolohojian, J.
The cases were submitted on briefs.
Henry C. Dinger for John Scneider & others.
Sarah K. Grossnickle, of Maine, & Thomas O. Bean for Max
Page & others.
Andrea Joy Campbell, Attorney General, Anne Sterman &
Phoebe Fischer-Groban, Assistant Attorneys General, for the
defendants.
Frank J. Bailey, John C. La Liberte, & Nicholas M.
O'Donnell, for Pioneer Public Interest Law Center & others,
amici curiae.
WOLOHOJIAN, J. The plaintiffs in these paired cases
challenge, pursuant to G. L. c. 54, § 53, the title and one-
sentence "yes/no" statements prepared by the Attorney General
and the Secretary of the Commonwealth (Secretary) with respect
to Initiative Petition 23-36, "A Law Requiring that Districts
Certify that Students Have Mastered the Skills, Competencies and
Knowledge of the State Standards as a Replacement for the MCAS
Graduation Requirement" (petition). Although they give
different reasons, both sets of plaintiffs argue that the title
and the one-sentence statements are "false, misleading or
inconsistent with the requirements of" § 53, and ask that we
3
amend them. We conclude that the title and one-sentence
statements satisfy § 53, and accordingly deny the relief sought.5
Background.6 Under our existing law, students attending
public schools and students educated with State funds must
satisfy a "competency determination" as a condition for high
school graduation. See G. L. c. 69, § 1D (i); Student No. 9 v.
Board of Educ., 440 Mass. 752, 758 (2004). Competency, in turn,
is measured by a student's performance on what are known as the
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests. See
G. L. c. 69, §§ 1D (i), 1I; 603 Code Mass. Regs. § 30.03 (2022).
5 We acknowledge the amicus brief submitted by Pioneer
Interest Law Center, Michael Contompasis, and James A.
Caradonio.
6 The Page plaintiffs and Schneider plaintiffs filed their
complaints in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County on
May 9 and 16, 2024, respectively. A single justice paired,
reserved, and reported the two cases for consideration by the
full court.
Both complaints were timely filed within twenty days of
publication of the title and one-sentence statements, which did
not occur until April 26, 2024. See G. L. c. 54, § 53.
"[B]ecause we make every effort to resolve ballot cases before
the voter information guide and ballots are sent for printing in
early July," Hensley v. Attorney Gen., 474 Mass. 651, 671-672
(2016), we find ourselves once again put in the undesirable
position of deciding a § 53 challenge at the "proverbial
eleventh hour." See id. We reiterate our request that the
Attorney General and Secretary "consider preparing and
publishing the title and one-sentence statements under § 53 no
later than twenty days in advance of February 1 of the election
year" so that "challenges brought under the statute [can]
proceed in the normal course, at a more orderly pace, and not,
as here, at the proverbial eleventh hour." Id.
4
The one-paragraph petition proposes redefining competency
by ending MCAS tests as the relevant measure and, instead,
requiring a student to
"satisfactorily complet[e] coursework that has been
certified by the student's district as showing mastery of
the skills, competencies, and knowledge contained in the
state academic standards and curriculum frameworks in the
areas measured by the MCAS high school tests . . . , and in
any additional areas determined by the board."
Pursuant to art. 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts
Constitution, the Attorney General certified the petition and
prepared the following summary of its provisions:
"This proposed law would eliminate the requirement that a
student pass the [MCAS] tests (or other statewide or
district-wide assessments) in mathematics, science and
technology, and English in order to receive a high school
diploma. Instead, in order for a student to receive a high
school diploma, the proposed law would require the student
to complete coursework certified by the student's district
as demonstrating mastery of the competencies contained in
the state academic standards in mathematics, science and
technology, and English, as well as any additional areas
determined by the Board of Elementary and Secondary
Education."
No one (whether the plaintiffs here or any other set of voters)
has challenged either the Attorney General's certification or
her summary.
Thereafter, the Attorney General and Secretary published in
the Massachusetts Register the ballot question title and one-
sentence statements that are at issue in this case. They state
as follows:
5
Title: "Elimination of MCAS as High School Graduation
Requirement."
"Yes" one-sentence statement: "A YES VOTE would eliminate
the requirement that students pass the [MCAS] in order to
graduate high school but still require students to complete
coursework that meets state standards."
"No" one-sentence statement: "A NO VOTE would make no
change in the law relative to the requirement that a
student pass the MCAS in order to graduate high school."
The one-sentence statements are slated to appear on the November
Statewide election ballot together with the petition and the
Attorney General's summary. See G. L. c. 54, § 42A. They will
also appear, together with the title, petition, summary, and
other information, in the Information for Voters guide mailed to
voters. See G. L. c. 54, §§ 53, 54.
Discussion. General Laws c. 54, § 53, in relevant part,
instructs the Attorney General and Secretary to prepare jointly
"a ballot question title" and "fair and neutral [one]-sentence
statements describing the effect of a yes or no vote." Section
53 allows any fifty voters to file a petition seeking to have
the title or statements be amended. G. L. c. 54, § 53.
However, such relief will be granted "only if it is clear" that
the title or one-sentence statements are "false," "misleading,"
or otherwise "inconsistent with the requirements of [§ 53]".
Id. "[W]e afford deference to 'the Attorney General's and the
Secretary['s] reasonable judgments in deciding what to include
in the [title and the] one-sentence statements." Anderson v.
6
Attorney Gen., 490 Mass. 26, 34 (2022), quoting Dunn v. Attorney
Gen., 474 Mass. 675, 688 n.12 (2016). "Such deference is
entirely appropriate, given the challenge of creating a title
that fairly characterizes a sometimes complex petition and of
drafting a single sentence that fairly and neutrally describes
the consequence of a 'yes' or 'no' vote regarding such a
petition." Hensley v. Attorney Gen., 474 Mass. 651, 668 (2016).
The crux of the arguments advanced by both sets of
plaintiffs is that the title and one-sentence statements are
misleading because they are incomplete. The Page plaintiffs
argue that the title and one-sentence "yes" statement are
misleadingly incomplete because they mention only that the
petition will eliminate MCAS as a graduation requirement,
without also stating that MCAS would be replaced with something
else. They accordingly ask that we make the amendments set out
in the margin.7 The Schneider plaintiffs assert that the title
and one-sentence statements are misleadingly incomplete because,
by referencing only the elimination of MCAS as a graduation
7 The Page plaintiffs ask us to substitute the term
"elimination" with the term "replacement" in the title and to
amend the one-sentence "yes" statement to be as follows: "A YES
VOTE would require that for a student to graduate high school,
the school district must determine that the student
satisfactorily completed coursework certified by the district as
demonstrating mastery of state curriculum standards instead of
passing the MCAS."
7
requirement, they do not disclose that the petition would
prohibit the use of any uniform Statewide assessment as a
graduation requirement. The Schneider plaintiffs' proposed
amendments also appear in the margin.8
We assess these arguments keeping in mind that the title
and the one-sentence statements generally "'cannot, and should
not, attempt to describe all the elements of a proposed measure'
because 'that would undermine their usefulness as a shorthand
reference for voters'" (alteration omitted). Anderson, 490
Mass. at 34, quoting Dunn, 474 Mass. at 688 n.12. Instead, they
are designed to be concise, and "conciseness and completeness
are often incompatible." Bowe v. Secretary of the Commonwealth,
320 Mass. 230, 243 (1946). In determining whether a title or
one-sentence statement is misleadingly incomplete, we consider
it "in the context of the other information that will be
furnished to voters in the information guide prepared by the
Secretary and on the ballot." Hensley, 474 Mass. at 669. An
incomplete title or one-sentence statement is clearly misleading
only where, in the context of other information provided to
voters, its incompleteness results in a significant
8 The Schneider plaintiffs ask us to substitute the term
"MCAS" with "any uniform statewide assessment" in both the title
and one-sentence statements.
8
mischaracterization of the petition's substance. See, e.g., id.
at 668-669.
Here, the short petition addresses a single regulatory
issue (high school graduation requirements), and the title and
one-sentence statements accurately characterize what the
petition proposes to do (eliminate MCAS tests as a graduation
requirement). It is true, as the plaintiffs point out, that the
petition would also (i) replace the MCAS requirement with a new
assessment scheme and (ii) prohibit any future Statewide
assessment from being used as a graduation requirement. But
these are not distinct regulatory features of the petition. The
title and one-sentence statements do not need to describe every
feature of the petition. See Hensley, 474 Mass. at 669 n.28
(even though petition would also legalize, regulate, and tax
"hashish" and "food products with tetrahydrocannabinol [THC],"
title did not need to reference these products). Here, we defer
to the Attorney General and Secretary's reasonable decision that
the information did not need to be included. See Anderson, 490
Mass. at 34. And we see no risk that the missing information
would mislead voters given that the short, one-paragraph
petition, and the Attorney General's equally short and concise
one-paragraph summary, explicitly and clearly explain the
details of the petition and provide context for the title and
one-sentence statements.
9
The features of the petition omitted from the title and
one-sentence statements here are not analogous to the
information missing from the title that gave us concern in
Hensley. See Hensley, 474 Mass. at 668-669. There, the
petition contained a long and complicated scheme that had three
distinct regulatory features: the legalization of marijuana,
its regulation, and its taxation. Id. at 669. The title,
however, referred only to "Marijuana Legalization," and we
accordingly concluded that it was clearly misleading because it
did not include reference to the two other major features of the
petition. Id. At the same time, Hensley teaches that not all
omissions from a title or one-sentence statement are clearly
misleading. For example, we concluded that the title did not
need to include the term "adult use," reasoning that an average
voter would reasonably understand that the legalization of
marijuana would not extend to people under the age of twenty-
one.9 See id. at 669 n.28. Here, as we have already noted, what
are omitted from the title and one-sentence statements are not
distinct regulatory features of the petition.
We now turn to two additional arguments forwarded by the
Page plaintiffs. First, the Page plaintiffs argue that the one-
We used "average voter" in Hensley as shorthand for the
9
objective inquiry of whether voters would be clearly misled by
an omission in the title.
10
sentence "yes" statement is misleading because it does not
explicitly state that the new proposed assessments standard
would be a graduation requirement. Under the Page plaintiffs'
reading, the "yes" statement categorizes the assessments
standard as a general academic requirement rather than as a
graduation requirement. We are not persuaded. The petition
itself only addresses graduation requirements, and thus the one-
sentence "yes" statement is reasonably understood as referencing
graduation requirements.
Second, the Page plaintiffs argue that the word "still" in
the one-sentence "yes" statement incorrectly implies that
students are required under current law to complete coursework
meeting State standards to graduate high school, and that the
statement accordingly fails to explain that such coursework
would be a replacement graduation requirement under the proposed
law. This argument depends on accepting the Page plaintiffs'
contention that "still" is used to mean "continually." But a
natural reading of the one-sentence statement makes clear that
the term "still" is used to mean "nevertheless." Merriam-
Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com
/dictionary/still [https://perma.cc/8T9P-83E9]. Thus, contrary
to the Page plaintiffs' contention, the "yes" statement explains
that the petition would replace the MCAS graduation requirement.
11
Conclusion. The matter is remanded to the county court for
entry of a judgment declaring that the Attorney General and
Secretary's title and one-sentence statements describing the
effects of a "yes" vote and a "no" vote are in compliance with
the requirements of G. L. c. 54, § 53.
So ordered.