BOSTON — Massachusetts voters who wanted to cut their own state income tax from 5% to 4% over three years will not get to vote on the question in November — because Attorney General Andrea Campbell's office wrote a summary of the ballot question that the state's highest court ruled was "significantly misleading."

The June 18 Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Finfer v. Attorney General struck Initiative Petition 25-18 from the 2026 statewide election ballot. The vote was unanimous across the seven justices, including all of Governor Maura Healey's appointees.

The fundamental error is technical, but the practical result is not. Here, in plain English, is what happened.

What the ballot question would have done

The petition, filed in August 2025 by ten registered voters including James Stergios of the Pioneer Institute and Paul Craney of the Mass Fiscal Alliance, asked Massachusetts voters to cut the state's personal income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years — 4.67% in 2027, 4.33% in 2028, and 4.00% beginning in 2029.

That cut would have applied to:

Wages and salaries ("Part B" income in the state's tax code) — the rate that most working Massachusetts residents pay on their paychecks.
Interest and dividends ("Part A" income) — the rate paid on savings-account interest, mutual-fund distributions, and similar passive income.

A statewide Suffolk University poll showed approximately 65% of Massachusetts residents supported the cut.

By December 2025, the petitioners had collected more than 85,000 signatures — well above the constitutional threshold — and submitted them to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. The petition was on track to appear before voters in November 2026.

What Campbell's office got wrong

By Massachusetts statute, the rate at which long-term capital gains are taxed is automatically tied to the regular income tax rate. If the regular income tax rate drops from 5% to 4%, the long-term capital gains tax rate also automatically drops from 5% to 4%. It happens by operation of state law — no separate vote is needed.

Long-term capital gains, in plain English, are the profits you make when you sell something you've held longer than one year. Examples:

MASSDAILYNEWS

STAY UPDATED

Get Mass Daily News delivered to your inbox

You sell your house for more than what you bought it for (above the federal exclusion of $250,000 for single filers / $500,000 for married couples filing jointly).
You sell stocks, mutual funds, or ETFs that you've held in a brokerage account for more than a year.
You sell a small business you've owned for at least a year.
You cash out long-held investments that trigger a capital-gain event.

Campbell's office's ballot summary told voters the opposite. It said the petition would "lower the tax rates on (1) personal taxable income consisting of interest and dividends, and (2) personal taxable income other than interest, dividends or capital gain income."

That language excluded capital gains. The SJC ruled that was wrong. As the court wrote: "Because Initiative Petition 25-18 would lower the Part B rate, it also would lower the rate for most long-term capital gain income."

Campbell admitted it at oral argument

Buried in the SJC's ruling is a striking admission. At oral argument on May 4, 2026, Campbell's office acknowledged that the summary's exclusion of capital gains was wrong as a matter of law — but tried to characterize it as a minor "collateral effect" of the petition's "two express changes."

Per the ruling: "At oral argument, the Attorney General acknowledged that, as current law stands, there is a 'third rate' that would change as a 'collateral effect' of the measure's two express changes."

The SJC rejected that defense. The court ruled that the omission was "significantly misleading" because it would lead a reasonable voter to believe that capital gains were unaffected, when in fact under current law they would be affected at the same rate as wages and salaries.

The "Yes" and "No" statements prepared jointly by Campbell's office and the Secretary of the Commonwealth contained the same omission. They told voters: "A YES VOTE would gradually lower to 4% the tax rates on interest and dividends and other personal taxable income such as wages and salaries." Again, no mention of long-term capital gains.

The Court was clear: this is not just a tax on the wealthy

The Court explicitly noted that long-term capital gains tax is not just an issue for high-net-worth individuals. As the ruling states: long-term capital gains taxes are "relevant to 'not just the very wealthy,' but also 'many people selling a home.'"

A few real-world examples of Massachusetts residents whose tax bills would have changed under the petition:

A married couple selling their home and realizing a $700,000 gain — $200,000 above the $500,000 federal exclusion — would have paid Massachusetts long-term capital gains tax on that remaining $200,000. At the current 5% rate, that's $10,000 to the state. At the proposed 4% rate, it would have been $8,000 — a $2,000 savings.
A small business owner selling a business they've owned for ten years for $1 million would have paid $50,000 in state long-term capital gains tax at 5%. At 4%, they would have paid $40,000 — a $10,000 savings.
A retiree liquidating $500,000 in long-held brokerage assets would have paid $25,000 in state tax at 5%. At 4%, they would have paid $20,000 — a $5,000 savings.

None of those Massachusetts residents will see those tax savings now. The question will not be on the November ballot.

What happens next

The Supreme Judicial Court rejected a request from the petition's proponents that Campbell be allowed to "voluntarily revise" the summary so that the question could remain on the ballot. The court ruled that once an unfair summary is on signature forms, the petition cannot proceed — even if the more than 85,000 signers collectively supported placing the question before voters.

The earliest a similar income tax cut question could appear on a Massachusetts ballot is the 2028 statewide election.

Campbell, who took office in January 2023, is up for reelection in 2026.

The full SJC opinion is available at the Massachusetts Parole Records and Hearings document portal.

The income tax cut Massachusetts voters won't get to vote on — and what AG Campbell's office got wrong, in plain English

Listen to Article