News - Court blocks 'millionaire tax' question from state ballot
Legal Marketing News
Bookmark This Site
Court blocks 'millionaire tax' question from state ballot
Law Firm Press | 2018/06/16 10:51
Massachusetts' highest court on Monday struck down a proposed "millionaire tax" ballot question, blocking it from going before state voters in November and ending advocates' hopes for generating some $2 billion in additional revenue for education and transportation.

The Supreme Judicial Court, in a 5-2 ruling, said the initiative petition should not have been certified by Democratic Attorney General Maura Healey because it violated the "relatedness" clause of the state constitution that prohibits ballot questions from mingling unrelated subjects — in this case, taxing and spending.

The proposed constitutional amendment — referred to by its proponents as the "Fair Share Amendment," would have imposed a surtax of 4 percent on any portion of an individual's annual income that exceeds $1 million. The measure called for revenues from the tax to be earmarked for transportation and education.

Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Frank Gaziano said a voter who supported the surtax but opposed earmarking the funds for a specific purpose would be left "in the untenable position of choosing which issue to support and which must be disregarded."

The justices offered hypothetical examples of voters who might support spending on one priority but not the other, such as a subway commuter with no school-age children.

The measure had been poised to reach voters in November after receiving sufficient support from the Legislature in successive two-year sessions. But several business groups, including the Massachusetts High Technology Council and Associated Industries of Massachusetts, sued to block it.

The court's ruling was a devastating blow for Raise Up Massachusetts, a coalition of labor unions, community and religious organizations that collected more than 150,000 signatures in support of the millionaire tax.


[PREV] [1] ..[812][813][814][815][816][817][818][819][820].. [2365] [NEXT]
All
Legal News
Law Firm News
Court News
U.S. Court News
Legal Line News
Legal News Feed
Law Firm Press
Legal Opinions
Amazon workers strike at multiple faci..
TikTok asks Supreme Court to temporari..
Supreme Court rejects Wisconsin parent..
US inflation ticked up last month as s..
Court seems reluctant to block state b..
Harvey Weinstein hospitalized after ‘..
Romanian court orders a recount of pre..
Judge blocks Louisiana law requiring t..
PA high court orders counties not to c..
Court overturns actor Jussie Smollett'..
Tight US House races in California as ..
North Carolina Attorney General Josh S..
High court won’t review Kari Lake’s ..
What to know about the unprecedented f..
A man who threatened to kill Democrati..


   Law Firm Networks
San Francisco Trademark Lawyer
San Francisco Copyright Lawyer
www.onulawfirm.com
Eugene Criminal Defense Attorneys
Eugene DUI Lawyer. Oregon Criminal Defense
www.mjmlawoffice.com
New York Adoption Lawyers
New Jersey Adoption Attorneys
New York Foster Care Lawyers
www.lawrsm.com

Law Firm News Updates
Legal News Updates
Click The Law News
Daily Legal News
Legal News Voice
Recent Legal News
 
 
©Legal Marketing News. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Legal Marketing News as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Legal Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. Also this site may contain legal advice, legal opinions, and statements of various legal information providers. The Content contained on the site has been prepared by Legal Marketing News as a service to its readers and is not intended to constitute legal or professional advice, which is always fact specific. Criminal Law Firm Website Design