BOSTON — A blockbuster ballot question calling for a major reduction in the state income tax was ruled ineligible by the state’s highest court to appear on the Nov. 3 ballot, with justices concluding Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office provided a “significantly misleading” summary of the proposal that was likely to influence voters.

The measure chiefly calls for the 5% income tax rate to be gradually stepped down to 4% over a three-year period, but the case hinged on other impacts of the proposal.

Led by longtime community organizer Lew Finfer, opponents of the tax cut filed a lawsuit with the SJC in January arguing that Campbell’s summary of the proposal is so flawed and unfair that the measure should be disqualified from the ballot. The suit claims the summary fails to make clear that the question’s passage would also reduce the tax rate for long-term capital gains income.

Campbell’s office had argued that it accurately summarized the proposal because the initiative “does not propose to amend the statutes setting the rate of taxation for capital gain income.”

The contested portion of Campbell’s summary says: “This proposed law would, over a period of three years, 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, such as wages and salaries.”

“Because current law ties the tax rate for most Part C taxable income, i.e., long-term capital gain income, to the Part B rate, the proposed law also would reduce the long-term capital gain tax rate. The summary’s contrary statement is not a minor imprecision,” the Supreme Judicial Court ruled Thursday morning. “It is significantly misleading and likely to influence voters … The Attorney General therefore did not provide a ‘fair’ summary as required by art. 48, and the initiative petition may not appear on the 2026 Statewide election ballot.”

In September 2025, Campbell certified the petition as ballot eligible under the constitution and submitted a required summary that was placed on the forms that the question’s supporters used to gather the required signatures needed to ensure ballot access.

Supporters of the measure saw it as a way to help workers cope with the state’s high cost of living and make the state more attractive to businesses.  Opponents said the initiative petition would set the state back by forcing cuts in popular public services and programs.

“Today’s unprecedented ruling prevents Massachusetts voters from weighing in on a popular proposal to address the state’s cost-of-living crisis,” said Massachusetts Opportunity Alliance spokesperson Colin Reed. “It does not change the underlying reality: Massachusetts remains one of the most expensive states in the nation, with too many residents leaving in search of greater opportunity and a lower cost of living. This MOA-inspired proposal started an important conversation about substantive fixes to address these problems. Today’s court decision does not eliminate the urgent need for action. MOA will continue to advance practical solutions to make Massachusetts more affordable and competitive.”

Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, which pushed the question, said more than 100,000 Massachusetts residents signed petitions in support of measure and cited public polling indicating significant support for the question. The group also said the SJC had not removed a ballot question because of an attorney general’s summary in nearly a century.

“Today’s ruling underscores the critical importance of accuracy and impartiality in drafting materials intended for the electorate,” said Chris Keohan, spokesperson for Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts. “This decision disenfranchises millions of Massachusetts voters. We’re deeply disappointed that due to the Attorney General’s summary, voters won’t have the opportunity to decide on a measure with significant implications for their finances and for the state’s competitiveness.”

The group called for a “review of processes to ensure accountability and precision in future ballot preparations” and said its options moving forward include “advocating for procedural reforms or bringing this back to the ballot in two years.”  It also pointed out that a second ballot question it supports is moving forward and could deliver taxpayer relief through a reinforced state revenue cap.

Top legislative Democrats opposed the question and reacted Thursday morning.

“I’m a little happy,” Senate President Karen Spilka said.

Other opponents of the question celebrated the ruling.

“Today’s decision has made clear that billionaires cannot buy themselves sneaky tax breaks with their misleading and irresponsible ballot question,” said Chrissy Lynch, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. “Working families in Massachusetts are better off with this question off the ballot, and we look forward to continuing to work with state policymakers to create a more affordable and livable Massachusetts by investing in – not gutting – funding for our schools, our roads, our housing, and the programs that our communities need.”

“This tax cut campaign was never about delivering real relief for working class families facing an affordability crisis,” said Harris Gruman, chair of Protect Massachusetts Future and Executive Director of the SEIU Massachusetts State Council. “Even the income tax cut they proposed was about sneaking through a tax break for ultra-rich investors. And their true goal all along was to leverage the initiative into a deal to secure more tax breaks for ultra-rich investors and wealthy heirs, along with massive giveaways to profitable corporations. We’re grateful to our state leaders for standing strong against the ultra-rich backers of this assault on our collective well-being.”

The Healey administration in early May said it identified two new consequences should the question pass: elimination of a charitable giving tax deduction and a higher tax rate on some small businesses.

The full court heard oral arguments in the case on May 4.