BOSTON — Auditor Diana DiZoglio sued top legislative leaders Tuesday, asking the Supreme Judicial Court to force compliance with the 2024 voter law authorizing audits of the Legislature.
That lawsuit, filed by DiZoglio with her office’s general counsel, Michael Leung-Tat, represents the first direct court action by the auditor to enforce Question 1. The law was approved by 72% of voters and granted her the authority to audit the Legislature, where DiZoglio previously served as a state representative and senator.
In the more than a year since the law took effect, legislative leaders have continued to refuse to turn over any documents, and DiZoglio hopes to force a constitutional clash before the state’s highest court.
In a verified complaint dated Tuesday, DiZoglio writes that she seeks “to enforce provisions of the state law – enacted over one year ago with the support of more than 72% of Massachusetts voters – requiring her office to audit the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” The complaint names House Speaker Ronald Mariano, Senate President Karen Spilka, House Clerk Timothy Carroll and Senate Clerk Michael Hurley as defendants.
The filing marks an escalation in a long dispute. The Legislature first blocked a proposed audit in 2023, arguing that existing law did not permit the auditor to examine the legislative branch. Voters amended the audit statute to state that the auditor shall “audit … the general court itself” and may “require the production of books, documents, vouchers and other records relating to any matter within the scope of an audit.”
According to the complaint, DiZoglio moved quickly after the law took effect. On Jan. 3, 2025, she notified Mariano and Spilka that her office would conduct a performance audit of the House, Senate and joint legislative committees. Three days later, the Office of the State Auditor requested budgets, audits, balance forward transactions and records of settlement agreements for fiscal years 2021 through 2024.
“Defendants have refused to produce any documents,” the complaint states.
The auditor says she sought to audit “contracting and procurement procedures, the use of taxpayer-funded nondisclosure agreements, and its balance forward line item,” describing those areas as high risk. The lawsuit alleges that neither chamber responded substantively to the document requests, with the Senate instead directing auditors to public websites that did not contain the requested information.
The filing also details months of back-and-forth between the auditor and the Attorney General’s Office, which traditionally represents state agencies in litigation. DiZoglio says she repeatedly asked Attorney General Andrea Campbell to bring suit on her behalf to compel compliance, beginning on Jan. 9, 2025.
“The OSA repeatedly sought the help of the AGO in enforcing the Document Requests,” the complaint states. It alleges that the attorney general’s office “declined to do so,” instead posing questions that had already been answered and raising hypothetical concerns about future audits.
The complaint accuses the attorney general’s office of “effectively obstruct[ing] the OSA’s efforts to enforce the Document Requests through litigation” and concludes that by declining to represent the auditor or appoint a special assistant attorney general, the office “has acted arbitrarily and capriciously, or scandalously.”
Campbell has consistently rejected that characterization, maintaining that her office has not received sufficient information from the auditor about the scope of the proposed audit and the legal claims involved to proceed with litigation.
Last week, Campbell told the News Service, “We’ve not had any issue on any ballot question enforcement or any state agency or constitutional office. The only one we’ve had issues with was the auditor, and I think that’s telling in many ways.”
The relief DiZoglio is seeking from the SJC is straightforward but consequential: an order compelling the House and Senate to produce the requested documents and permission for the auditor to appoint special assistant attorneys general of her choosing to pursue the matter.
The lawsuit lands as the dispute has widened beyond the Legislature. In recent months, courts have cited a 2023 attorney general opinion to decline participation in certain audits sought by the auditor’s office, prompting DiZoglio to warn publicly of a broader retreat from transparency tied to the legislative impasse.
Legislative leaders, for their part, have continued to argue that a legislative audit by the state auditor would violate separation of powers principles, despite the voter-approved statutory change. They have pointed to annual audits conducted by private firms and have accused DiZoglio of pursuing a “political audit.”
Republican U.S. Senate candidate John Deaton on Monday sought to force legislative compliance with Question 1 through a separate legal theory. Deaton, an attorney, filed suit with the Supreme Judicial Court alongside a group of “taxable inhabitant plaintiffs,” arguing that the Legislature’s refusal to submit to an audit amounts to unlawful spending of public funds.
Deaton paired the lawsuit with a call for what he dubbed a “Democratic Accountability & Transparency (DAT) Squeeze,” urging federal officials to freeze certain discretionary federal grants to Massachusetts until the audit dispute is resolved. In a statement announcing the suit, Deaton said the audit is necessary to ensure “taxpayer dollars actually reach the people who need them most.”
In a lengthy post on X, Deaton said he had written to federal agencies including the Office of Management and Budget and the U.S. Department of Transportation seeking a pause on “non-essential, non-emergency discretionary Federal funding,” while carving out protections for programs like SNAP, Medicaid and emergency services.
The Deaton lawsuit adds another layer to a conflict that has already pitted constitutional officers against one another and drawn in outside political actors. Unlike DiZoglio’s case, which is rooted directly in the amended audit statute and seeks enforcement through the SJC, Deaton’s suit blends state-law claims with pressure aimed at the federal level.
“Our office has released over 150 pages of communications between our office and the attorney generals that demonstrate how many times we’ve repeatedly answered the same questions over and over again. While the AG continues to allege that we have not,” said Dizoglio.
“Massachusetts legislature is among the least transparent legislative bodies in America, we’re the only state in the country that the legislature, the governor, the judiciary are exempt from public records law. Everyone that follows the Massachusetts legislature knows for a fact that Massachusetts, if not the worst state it is probably the second worst state for transparency. They are going to try and do everything they can to hide. We see this playing right now with the audit law,” said Executive Director at the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance Paul Craney.
“Everyday taxpayers are concerned about how their money is being spent, we have record budgets, we have record spending, we have calls for higher taxes, but we really don’t have a lot of accountability at the statehouse, but this audit law would allow for a glimmer of sunlight into that statehouse to disinfect what’s going on.”
“The Auditor does not have the authority to file this lawsuit. This is another ploy to sidestep the required approval of my office and will bring her no closer to auditing the Legislature. This filing is not about enforcing the law. In order to enforce the law, she would answer my office’s straightforward questions, including how privileges given to the Legislature in our state constitution nearly 250 years ago impact her authority to audit the Legislature. As I have explained on many occasions, any court asked to resolve these issues will require the Auditor to answer that question,” said Attorney General Andrea Campbell in a statement.
“The Auditor has suggested that I am reluctant to enforce ballot initiatives, which is inaccurate. Just this week, my office was in a federal appellate court defending the Right to Repair ballot initiative that voters overwhelmingly passed in 2020, and we defended the Cage-Free Animals ballot question all the way to the Supreme Court. I stand ready to enforce Question 1 as well, but I cannot do that if the Auditor continues to not answer our questions.”
“The Senate has tried to work with the Auditor and her office to understand what she is seeking to audit beyond the independent, professional audits that the Senate already undergoes each year. Since January 2025, the Senate subcommittee has attempted to engage with her directly, and invited her to testify before the subcommittee, which she declined,” said Cindy F. Friedman, Chair of the Senate Subcommittee in a statement.
“To date, the information the Auditor has provided the Senate regarding what she is seeking has been vague at best, much like the questions she has left unanswered when asked for specific information regarding the scope of the audit by the Attorney General. Given that, and that an independent, professional audit is done annually, we must assume that the Auditor’s intentions are purely political. My colleagues and I each swore an oath to uphold the Commonwealth’s Constitution when we took office. We have an obligation to honor those principles, including the separation of powers laid out in that document. At a time when constitutional norms are being challenged nationally, we cannot allow them to be undermined here in Massachusetts.”
Sam Drysdale is a reporter for State House News Service and State Affairs Pro Massachusetts.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates as more information becomes available.
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW