sjc-12064 03 appellee attorney general brief
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
1/71
CO
N(
NI
OI~
`V
EA
LT
H O
F M
A
SS
AC
HU
S
ET
TS
Supreme
J u d i c i a l
Court
SU
F
FO
L
K
s
;
N
a
J
C
-
12
06
4
ST
EP
HA
NI
E
GR
AY
RO
BE
R
T
~N
TO
NU
CC
I
BI
LL
WA
L
CZ
AK
I
AN
N
E
K
EL
L
Y
B.
1
0H
N
DI
LL
4
LI
NI
AH
?
. H I
I ~ I
,
AP
RI
L
WE
S
T;
BE
VE
R
LY
H
OL
NI
ES
,
TA
C[
NTH
E
A
J~
Br~
.Nt
AN
D V
AN
E
SS
A
CA
LD
E
RO
N-
R
OS
~ .
DO
.
_
P
l a i
n t
i f
f
A
p p
e l
l a n
t s
,
v
;
M
A
UR
A
E
AL
EY
N
I~ E
R
OF
FI
CI
AL
CA
PA
CI
TY
AS
T
HE
AT
.T
OE
~N
EY
G
E
NE
RA
L
A
ND
I
LL
IA
iv
I
F.
GA
LV
IN
N
HI S
OF
FI
CI
AL
CA
PA
CI
TY
A
S
SE
C
RE
TA
RY
OF
T
HE
C
OM
M
ON
WE
LT
H
D e
f ~
n c ~
a n
t -ap
pe
ll
ee
s.
ON
R
ES
ER
VA
TI
ON
a
~1
D R
E
PO
RT
RO
t~
1 T
HE
SU
PR
EM
E
ND
[C
I
AL
C
OU
RT
F
O
R SU
FF
OL
K CO
UN
T
Y
BR
I
EF
]F
T
H
E
AP
P
EL
L
EE
S
N
I L J
R
A
H
EA
L
EY
A
t t
o r
n e y
G
en
eY
a
l
~
—
~
J u l
i a
n a
de
Ha
a
n
R
ic
e;
B
BO
X6
4
91
8
M
ic
ha
el
i
r e
s t o
n e
,B
B
O 89
88
5
A s
s i s
t a
n t
A t
£ o j
~ n
e y s
G
en
er
al
Go
ve
rn
me
nt
B u
re
a u
On
e
s
hb
ur
to
n
P
l a
ce
B o
s to
n
Ma
s s
a ch
us
et
ts
0
21
08
( 6
1 7
)
96
3- 2
58
3
em
ai
l:
j u l
i a
n a .
r i
c e
@
s t
at
e.
ma .
us
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
2/71
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTIONS
PRESENTED ....
..............................1
STATEMENT
OF
THE
CASE
................................1
Nature
of the Case
....... ..... ..............1
Prior
Proceedings
.
..............................2
Statement of
Facts ..............................3
1. Attorney
General's
Certification
Process ......................_........3
2.
Substance
of
the
Petition .............4
SiJMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
.....
....... ... .........6
.ARGUMENT
...............
.............................10
I. THE PROPOSED
LAW
IS IN
PROPER
FORM
FOR
CERTIFICATION
UNDER
ARTICLE
48 ...........10
A. Properly
Read
as
a Whole, the
Initiative
Petition
Proposes a
~~Law.
..
.............................11
1. The Effect
of a
Petition Must
Be
Assessed
in
Its
Entirety.
12
2. Considered in Its Entirety,
the Measure Would
Unquestionably
Amend
Existing
Education Law ..................14
3.
Even If
Considered
in
Isolation,
Section 1
of the
Measure Would Have Legal
Force
and
Effect and
Therefore Proposes
a
Law.
.......15
a. Section l would restore
the pre
-2010 version of
the curriculum
frameworks. ...........'.....18
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
3/71
b.
Section
l~would have
the
binding
effect
of
reversing
the
Board's
2010 vote
.................19
4.
Sections 2,
3, and
4
Are Not
Subsidiary and
Incidental to
the
Main Purpose
of the
Petition
.......................21
B.
The
Omission
of One
Word in the
Enacting Style Does
Not
Make
the
Petition
Improper
Under Article
48
.....
.............................24
1.
The
Absence of
the
Word
By
Is
a Minor
Error
That Did Not
Warrant
Declining
Certification
..................24
2.
The Enacting
Style
Is
a
Creature of
Statute, Not
Article
48, and
Does Not
Provide a Basis
for the
Attorney
General to
Decline
Certification
..................26
II.
THE
PROPOSED LAW
SATISFIES
THE
RELATEDNESS REQUIREMENT
OF
ARTICLE
48
..........
.............................29
A. The Relatedness
Test
Requires
That
a Reasonable
Voter Be
Able to
Identify a
Meaningful
Operational
Relationship
Among
a
Proposed
Law's
Various
Subjects
..............29
B. The
Proposed Law
Satisfies
the
Meaningful
Operational
Relationship
Test.
...
..............33
1. The
Proposed
Law
Would
Amend
Closely
Interconnected
Provisions
of
State Education
Law
............................34
ii
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
4/71
2.
Each
of
the
Proposed
Law s
Provisions
Furthers
the
Common
Purpose of
Adopting
More
Specific
Procedures
Governing
the
Development
and
Implementation
of
Educational
Standards
......................37
a.
A
reasonable voter
could
believe
that requiring
new
curriculum
development
and
review
committees
would
change
the
process
for
developing
and
implementing
curriculum
frameworks
................39
b.
A
reasonable
voter
could
believe
that
repealing
the
Common
Core
State
Standards
would
facilitate
the
implementation
of
the
new
decisionmaking
processes
mandated
by
the
petition s
other
sections
..................42
c.
A
reasonable
voter could
believe
that
publishing
test
items
would
facilitate
the
implementation of
educational
standards
derived
via
the new
processes.
...............43
CONCLUSION
.............
.............................45
~~
Amendment
Article
48
(Referendum
Provisions
Omitted)
St.
1920,
c.
388
House
Bill
No.
1585
(1920)
iii
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
5/71
Public
Document No.
46
Twenty
-
Eighth
Annual
Report of
the
Secretary
of
the
commonwealth
of
Massachusetts
for
the Year
Ending
November 30
1919
page
22
iv
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
6/71
TABLE
OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Abdow v. Attorney General,
468
Mass.
478 2014)
..................30, 32,
33,
35, 38
Albano
v.
Attorney General,
437
Mass.
l56
2002)
...........................39
Associated
Indus.
of
Massachusetts
v.
Secretary
of the
Commonwealth,
413 Mass.
1 1992)
.........................18, 25
Bates v.
Director
of the
Office of
campaign
anu r~li~lc:al
rliiailc ~
436 Mass.
144 2002) ...........................20
Buckley v.
Secretary
of
the
Commonwealth,
371
Mass.
195
1976)
...........................28
Carney
v.
Attorney General,
447
Mass.
218 2006) .......................passim
Citizens
for a Competitive
Massachusetts
v. Secretary of the
Commonwealth,
413
Mass. 25 1992) ............................28
Massachusetts
Teachers
Association v.
Secretary of the
Commonwealth,
384 Mass. 209
1981)
...............25,
30, 31,
39
Mazzone v. Attorney
General,
432
Mass.
515
2000)
..................12,
16
22,
23, 39
Nigro
v. Attorney General,
402
Mass.
438
1988)
... .......................24
Opinion of the
Justices to
the
House of
Representatives,
262
Mass.
604 1928)
..................12,
14,
17,
21,
22
v
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
7/71
Paisner v.
Attorney
General,
390
Mass.
593
1983)
..................11,
13,
17,
20,
21
Yankee
Atomic
Elec.
Co.
v.
Secretary of
the
Commonwealth,
403 Mass.
203
1988)
...........................24
Statutes
G.L.
c.
4,
3
..........................11, 24, 26,
27
G.L.
c.
69
...
.............................4, 7,
15,
34
G.L.
c.
69,
§
1
.....
............................34,
36
G.L.
c.
69,
1D
.............................5, 21,
35
G.L.
c.
69,
lE
.........................5, 21, 35,
4
G.L.
c.
69,
§
lI
.........................5, 6,
21,
35,
36,
43
St.
1920,
C.
388,
§
2
..
.............................27
St.
1993, C.
71, § 27
..
......................:......34
St.
2012,
c.
369
.......
.............................17
Constitutional
Provisions
Mass.
Const.
Amend.
Art.
48
.....................passim
Mass.
Const.
Amend.
Art.
48,
The
Initiative,
Part
II,
§
1
...................11
Mass.
Const.
Amend.
Art.
48,
The
Initiative,
Part
II, §
3
...............10,
29
Mass.
Const.
Amend.
Art.
48,
General
Provisions,
Part
VI
....................20
Mass
Const.
Amend.
Art. 48,
General
Provisions,
Part
VII
.................:.26
vi
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
8/71
Rules
and
Regulations
Mass.
R.
App.
P.
16~a) 4)
...........................21
Miscellaneous
2 Debates
in
the
Massachusetts
Constitutional
Convention
1917
-1918
1918)
...........................24, 28
April
13,
1920,
statement of
intent
y its
sponsor,
Representative
Hull
.........
........26
House
Bill No.
1585
.....
...x
........................26
Public
Document
No.
46,
Twenty
-
Eighth
Annual
Report
of
the
Secretary
of the
Commonwealth
for
the
Year
Ending
November
30,
1919
.
.............................26
vii
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
9/71
QU
ES
TI
ON
S PR
ES
EN
TE
D
I
.
D
id
t
he
At
to
rn
ey
Gen
er
al
pz
op
erl
y
ce
rt
if
y
t
ha
t an
A
rt
icl
e
48
in
iti
at
iv
e
pe
ti
ti
on is
in
pr
op
er
f
or
m
f
or
s
ub
mis
si
on
t
o
t
he
pe
op
le
whe
re
(a
)
th
e
p
et
it
io
n,
on
th
e
wh
ol
e,
pr
op
os
es
a
la
w
by
p
re
sc
ri
bi
ng
g
ene
ra
l
bin
di
ng
ru
le
s
of
co
nd
uct
r
el
at
iv
e
t
o p
ubl
ic
e
du
cat
io
n;
an
d
(
b)
t
he
o
mis
si
on
o
f
on
e
wo
rd
f
ro
m
t
he
st
at
ut
or
y
ena
ct
in
g
st
yl
e
is
a
m
in
or
e
rr
or
t
ha
t
d
oe
s
no
t
af
fe
ct
th
e
me
ani
ng
of
t
he
pe
ti
ti
on?
II
. Di
d
the
At
to
rn
ey
Ge
ne
ral
pr
ope
rl
y
ce
rt
ify
th
at
the
p
et
it
io
n
sa
ti
sf
ie
s A
rt
ic
le
4
8'
s
re
la
te
dn
es
s
re
qu
ir
em
en
t
wh
er
e
a
re
as
on
ab
le
vo
ter
c
ou
ld
vi
ew
ea
ch
of
th
e
pr
op
os
ed
la
w'
s
s
ub
je
ct
s
as
ha
vi
ng
a
m
ea
ni
ng
fu
l
operational relationship to its overall purpose of
a
do
pt
in
g
m
or
e
s
pe
cif
ic
pr
oc
ed
ur
es.
g
ov
er
ni
ng
t
he
d
ev
el
op
me
nt
an
d
im
pl
em
en
ta
ti
on
o
f e
du
ca
ti
on
al
st
an
da
rd
s b
y
th
e
B
oar
d a
nd
Dep
ar
tm
en
t o
f
E
le
me
nta
ry
an
d
Se
co
nd
ar
y E
du
ca
ti
on?
S
T
TE
ME
NT O
F
TH
E
C
SE
N
at
ur
e
of
t
he
Ca
se
Th
is is
a c
ha
ll
en
ge
to
th
e
At
tor
ne
y
Ge
ne
ra
l'
s
c
er
ti
fi
ca
ti
on
u
nd
er
A
me
ndm
en
t
Ar
tic
le
48
o
f
Ini
ti
at
iv
e
P
et
it
io
n No
.
15
-1
2,
e
nt
itl
ed
,
I
ni
ti
at
iv
e
Pe
ti
ti
on
fo
r
a L
aw
Re
la
ti
ve
t
o E
ndi
ng
Co
mmo
n
Co
re
E
du
ca
ti
on
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
10/71
S
t
an
d
ar
d
s
,
wh
i
ch
is
c
u
r
re
n
tl
y
o
n tr
a
ck
t
o
a
pp
e
ar
o
n
t
h
e
N
o
v
em
b
er
2
01
6
s
t
at
e
wi
d
e
e
le
c
ti
o
n
b
al
l
ot
.
l
P
r
io
r
Proceedings
O
n
J
a
nu
a
ry
22
,
2
01
6
,
t
he
pl
a
in
t
if
f
s,
10
r
eg
i
st
e
re
d
vo
t
er
s
,
f
il
e
d
a
c
om
p
la
i
nt
i
n
th
e
c
ou
n
ty
co
u
rt
fo
r
d
ec
l
ar
a
to
r
y
j
ud
g
me
n
t,
ce
r
ti
o
r
ar
i
,
an
d
m
a
nd
a
m
us
se
e
ki
n
g
a
d
ec
l
ar
a
ti
o
n
th
a
t I
ni
t
i
at
i
ve
P
et
i
ti
o
n
1
5
-1
2
do
e
s
n
ot
co
m
pl
y
w
it
h
th
e
r
eq
u
ir
e
me
n
ts
o
f
A
rt
i
cl
e
4
8
an
d
an
order quashing
the
Attorney
G
en
e
ra
l
s
ce
r
ti
f
ic
a
ti
o
n
a
nd
en
j
oi
n
in
g
th
e
Se
c
re
t
ar
y
o
f
th
e
C
om
m
on
w
ea
l
th
fr
o
m
p
la
c
i
ng
t
he
m
e
as
u
re
o
n
t
h
e
No
v
em
b
er
20
1
6
st
a
te
w
id
e
e
l
ec
t
io
n
ba
l
lo
t
.
J
oi
n
t
Ap
p
en
d
ix
(J
A
) at
1
,
3-9
.
C
on
s
is
t
en
t
w
it
h
u
s
ua
l
pr
a
ct
i
ce
in
t
h
es
e
m
at
t
er
s
,
t
h
e
p
ar
t
i
es
fi
l
ed
a
s
t
at
e
me
n
t
o
f
a
gr
e
e
d
f
a
ct
s
(
J
A
5
7-
11
0
)
a
n
d a
j
o
in
t
m
ot
i
on
t
o
r
e
se
r
ve
a
n
d
.r
e
po
r
t
(J
A
11
1
-
11
3
),
w
h
ic
h
t
h
e
c
ou
r
t
(
Go
r
dy
,
J
.)
a
ll
o
we
d
o
n
F
eb
r
ua
r
y
2
5
. J
A
1
1
5.
T
h
e
c
as
e
w
a
s
en
t
e
re
d
in
t
hi
s
co
u
rt
o
n
Ma
r
ch
1
.
Du
e
t
o
p
ri
n
ti
n
g
d
e
ad
l
in
e
s
fo
r
t
he
I
n
fo
r
ma
t
io
n
f
or
V
o
te
r
s
Gu
i
de
,
t
h
e
de
f
en
d
an
t
S
e
cr
e
ta
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
Co
m
mo
n
w
ea
l
th
re
s
pe
c
tf
u
ll
y
r
eq
u
es
t
s
t
h
a
t
t
hi
s
Co
u
rt
is
s
ue
a
n
o
r
d
er
r
es
o
l
vi
n
g
th
i
s
c
a
se
by
Ju
l
y
1
1
,
w
i
th
op
i
n
i
on
s
)
to
fo
l
lo
w
i
f
n
e
ce
s
sa
r
y.
2
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
11/71
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
a
c
t
s
1
.
A
t
t
o
r
n
e
y
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
'
s
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
~
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
O
n
o
r
b
e
f
o
r
e
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
W
e
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
i
n
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
5
,
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
1
0
r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
v
o
t
e
r
s
f
i
l
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
A
t
t
o
r
n
e
y
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
a
n
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
n
t
i
t
l
e
d
,
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
P
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
L
a
w
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
t
o
E
n
d
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
o
n
C
o
r
e
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
J
A
5
7
-
5
8
.
n
~
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
o
r
d
e
r
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
s
h
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
i
t
,
t
h
e
A
t
t
o
r
n
e
y
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
numbered
t
h
e
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
1
5-
1
2
.
J
A
5
8
.
O
n
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
,
2
0
1
5
,
t
h
e
A
t
t
o
r
n
e
y
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
S
e
c
r
e
t
a
r
y
t
h
a
t
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
P
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
1
5
-
1
2
w
a
s
i
n
p
r
o
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
f
o
r
s
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
;
t
h
a
t
i
t
w
a
s
n
o
t
,
e
i
t
h
e
r
a
f
f
i
r
m
a
t
i
v
e
o
r
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
,
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
a
s
a
n
y
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
f
o
r
s
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
t
e
i
t
h
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
t
wo preceding biennial state elections;
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
i
t
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
o
n
l
y
m
a
t
t
e
r
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
o
r
m
u
t
u
a
l
l
y
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
a
n
d
n
o
t
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
u
n
d
e
r
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
A
r
t
i
c
l
e
4
8
.
I
d
.
A
s
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
A
r
t
i
c
l
e
4
8
,
t
h
e
A
t
t
o
r
n
e
y
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
S
e
c
r
e
t
a
r
y
a
f
a
i
r
a
n
d
c
o
n
c
i
s
e
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
.
I
d
.
2
T
h
e
p
l
a
i
n
t
i
f
f
s
d
o
n
o
t
c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
t
h
e
A
t
t
o
r
n
e
y
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
'
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
.
3
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
12/71
T
h
er
e
af
te
r
,
t
he
Se
cr
e
ta
r
y
pr
e
pa
re
d
an
d
d
is
tr
i
bu
t
ed
b
l
an
k
si
gn
a
tu
r
e
fo
rm
s
t
o t
he
pe
ti
t
io
n
's
proponents. JA
58. On or
before t
h
e
fi
r
st
W
ed
n
es
da
y
i
n
D
e
ce
mb
e
r
20
15
;
t
h
e
p
r
op
on
e
nt
s
g
at
h
er
e
d
an
d
f
i
le
d
su
f
fi
c
ie
n
t a
d
di
t
io
na
l
v
ot
e
r s
i
gn
a
tu
re
s
to
r
eq
ui
r
e
t
he
S
e
cr
e
ta
r
y
t
o t
r
an
sm
i
t
th
e
m
e
as
ur
e
t
o t
h
e Le
g
is
la
t
ur
e
,
wh
i
ch
h
e
d
id
.
JA
5
8-
5
9.
A
s
re
q
ui
re
d
b
y
A
rt
i
cl
e
48
,
if
th
e
Le
g
is
la
t
ur
e
do
e
s
n
ot
e
n
ac
t
t
h
e p
r
op
os
e
d
l
aw
b
y
t
h
e
f
ir
s
t W
ed
n
es
da
y
i
n
M
ay
a
nd
i
f
th
e
pr
o
po
ne
n
ts
t
hen
fi
l
e s
uf
f
ic
i
en
t
ad
d
it
io
n
al
v
ot
e
r
si
g
na
t
ur
es
by
th
e
fi
r
st
W
ed
n
es
d
ay
in
Ju
ly
,
t
he
Se
c
re
t
ar
y
wi
l
l
in
c
lu
de
t
he
p
ro
po
s
ed
l
a
w
i
n
t
h
e
I
n
fo
r
ma
ti
o
n
f
o
r
V
ot
e
rs
Gu
id
e
b
e
in
g
p
r
ep
ar
e
d
t
hi
s s
um
m
er
a
nd
p
la
ce
th
e
qu
es
t
io
n
o
n
t
he
N
ov
e
mb
e
r
ba
l
lo
t.
JA
59
.
2
.
Su
bs
t
an
c
e
of
t
h
e
P
et
i
ti
o
n
Pe
t
it
io
n
15
-1
2
p
r
op
os
e
s a
me
n
dm
en
t
s
t
o
G.
L.
c
.
69
,
wh
ic
h
s
et
s
f
o
rt
h
t
h
e
po
w
er
s
a
n
d
d
u
ti
es
o
f
t
h
e
B
oa
r
d
o
f
E
l
em
e
nt
ar
y
a
n
d S
e
co
n
da
ry
Ed
u
ca
t
io
n
B
oa
r
d )
,
t
he
C
o
mm
i
ss
io
n
er
of
E
le
m
en
t
ar
y
a
n
d
S
ec
on
d
ar
y
E
d
uc
a
ti
on
Commissioner ),
a
nd
t
he
D
ep
a
rt
m
en
t
o
f
E
le
me
n
ta
r
y
a
n
d
S
ec
o
nd
a
ry
E
du
ca
t
io
n
De
pa
r
tm
e
nt
)
Se
e
JA
63
-
6
4.
Am
o
ng
t
h
es
e
du
t
ie
s
a
r
e
th
e
d
ev
el
o
pm
e
nt
o
f
a
ca
d
em
i
c
s
t
an
da
r
ds
a
n
d
c
u
rr
i
cu
lu
m
f
ra
me
w
or
k
s
f
or
p
u
bl
ic
ed
uc
a
ti
o
n
i
n
t
he
Co
m
mo
n
we
al
t
h
an
d
ad
o
pt
i
on
o
f
a
s
ys
t
em
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
13/71
for
evaluating
the
performance
of
public
schools
and
school
districts.
See
G.L.
c.
69,
§~
1D,
lE, lI.
The
petition has
six
sections.
JA
63
-64.
Section l
would
repeal
a
2010
vote
of the
Board
relative
to
the
adoption
of
state
educational
standards
and
would
restore
the
standards
in
place
prior
to
the
vote.
JA
63.
Section
2
would
amend
G.L.
c.
69,
§
1D, to
(a)
require
the
Board
to
include in
the
process
for
developing. academic
standards
committees
comprised
of
Massachusetts
public-
school
teachers
and
academics
from
Massachusetts
public
and
private
universities;
and
(b)
require the
Commissioner
to
copyright
the
curriculum
frameworks
but grant
permission
for
non
commercial
educational uses.
Id.3
Section
would
further
amend
G.L. c.
69, §
1D,
to
Create
review
committees,
one
each
in
the
area
of
mathematics,
science
and
technology,
and
English.
Id.
The
Governor
would
appoint
these
committees
from
3
Both the
initiative
petition
and
the
plaintiffs'
brief
are less
than
precise
in
their
use
of
the
terms
academic
standards
and
curriculum frameworks.
In
practice,
the
two
elements
occupy
one
document
called
a
curriculum
framework,
which
includes
learning
standards
for
the
subject
matter at
particular grade
levels.
Current
curriculum
frameworks
are
available.
at http:
/
/www.
doe.mass
.edu
/frameworks
/current.html
(accessed
April 4,
2016).
5
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
14/71
Ma
ss
a
ch
us
e
tt
s
pu
b
li
c
an
d
p
ri
va
te
r
es
ea
r
ch
u
ni
v
er
si
ti
e
s
a
nd
t
he
c
o
mm
it
te
e
s
w
ou
ld
ne
ed
to
w
ar
r
an
t
by
a
tw
o-
thirds vote that
any
new curriculum framewor
ks
w
er
e
e
qu
iv
a
le
nt
to
th
e
s
t
an
da
rd
s
of
t
he
mo
st
ed
u
ca
ti
on
a
ll
y
a
dv
an
c
ed
n
at
io
ns
as
d
et
e
rm
in
ed
by
th
e
Tr
en
ds
i
n
Ma
t
he
ma
ti
cs
a
nd
Sc
ie
n
ce
s
st
u
dy
b
e
fo
re
t
h
e B
oa
rd
c
o
ul
d
a
do
p
t
t
he
m.
I
d
.
S
ec
ti
on
4
o
f
th
e p
e
ti
ti
o
n
wo
u
ld
a
me
nd
G.
L.
c.
6
9,
§
l
I
t
o
re
q
ui
re
th
e
a
nn
ua
l
r
el
e
as
e
o
f
a
l
l
as
s
es
sm
en
t
s
fo
r
e
ve
ry
gr
ad
e an
d
e
ve
ry
s
ub
je
c
t
i
nc
lu
d
in
g
qu
es
ti
o
ns
co
ns
t
ru
ct
ed
re
sp
o
ns
es
a
n
d
e
ss
ay
s
J
A
6
3
.
S
ec
ti
o
n 5
i
s a
s
ev
e
ra
bi
li
t
y
pr
o
vi
si
on
an
d
S
ec
t
io
n
6
is
an
e
ff
ec
ti
v
e
-d
at
e
pr
ov
is
i
on
.
J
A
-6
4.
SU
M
MA
RY
O
F
T
HE
AR
G
UM
EN
T
In
e
va
l
ua
ti
ng
wh
et
h
er
a
n
i
ni
t
ia
ti
v
e pe
t
it
io
n
u
nd
er
A
me
n
dm
en
t
A
rt
ic
l
e
48
pr
o
pe
rl
y
pr
op
o
se
s
a
l
aw
th
e
At
t
or
ne
y
Ge
ne
r
al
mu
s
t
c
on
s
id
er
th
e
pu
r
po
se
an
d
ef
f
ec
t o
f
t
he
pe
ti
ti
o
n
a
s
a
w
ho
le
.
H
e
re
th
e
At
to
rn
e
y
G
en
er
al
p
ro
pe
r
ly
ce
rt
i
fi
ed
t
h
at
t
he
In
i
ti
at
iv
e
Petition No. 15
-12 is i
n
pr
o
pe
r
.f
or
m
be
ca
u
se
i
t
p
ro
po
s
es
a
l
aw
b
y p
r
es
cr
ib
i
ng
g
en
er
al
ru
le
s
o
f
co
nd
u
ct
wi
th
b
in
d
in
g
ef
fe
ct
.
P
p.
1
0
-
13
)
I
f
a
d
op
te
d
b
y
th
e
vo
te
rs
~t
he
pr
op
os
e
d
la
w wo
ul
d
re
v
er
se
a
v
ot
e
of
t
he
st
a
te
Bo
a
rd
o
f
El
em
en
t
ar
y
an
d
D
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
15/71
Secondary
Education
concerning
state
educational
frameworks
and
would
amend
two
sections of
G.L. c. 69
governing the
development
and
implementation of
these
frameworks.
Because
the
purpose and
effect
of the
measure
would
be
to
change
the
legal
requirements
governing
educational
standards,
the
measure
would
enact
a
law~if
adopted.
(Pp. 14
-15)
Even
if
the
Attorney
General
could evaluate
each
section
of
an
initiative petition separately
in
piecemeal
fashion,
Section
1
would
have the
binding
legal effect
of
reversing
a
Board
vote
and
reinstating
the
educational
frameworks
that
were
in
place before
the
vote.
Therefore,
it
proposes a
law.
(Pp. 15-21).
Sections
2 through
4 of
the
measure would have
the
binding
legal
effect
of
'amending
two sections
of
the
General
Laws
relative
to
the
development
and
implementation
of
educational
standards.
Therefore,
those
sections
also
propose laws.
(Pp.
21
-24)
The
Attorney
General
properly
certified the
measure
although
it omits
one
word
by )
from the.
statutorily
prescribed
enacting
style
for citizen-
initiated laws.
This
minor
error
does not
affect
the
meaning of
the
petition, nor
would
any
voter be
confused
about its
provenance.
Nothing
in
Article 48
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
16/71
demands
that
the
Attorney
General
refuse to
certify a
petition
on
the
basis
of
such
an
error,
which would
not
undermine
the
purpose
of the
enacting
-style
requirement.
It is
not
clear
that
the petition's
proponents
were
even
required
to
include the
enacting
style
in
the
petition.
Finally,
allowing such
an
immaterial
error
to
invalidate
the
petition
would
contravene
the
drafters'
intent
that
Article
48 be
a
people's process without excessive barriers to
its
employment.
(Pp.
24-29)
The
Attorney
General
properly
concluded
that
the
initiative
petition
contains
only
subjects
that
are
related
or
mutually
dependent,
as
required by
Article
48.
All
aspects
of
the
proposed
law
are
meaningfully
operationally
related
to
its
common
purpose of
.adopting
more
specific
procedures
governing
the
development
and
implementation of
educational
standards.
(Pp.
29
-33)
The
measure
would
amend
existing
provisions
of
state
education
law
that
are
themselves
closely
interrelated:
provisions
governing
state
educational
standards
and
procedures
for
developing
and
implementing
.them
that
were
part
of
the
Massachusetts
Education
Reform
Act
of
1993.
The
Act's
central
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
17/71
building blocks
are
educational
standards
and
the
means of
assessing
student learning
against those
standards.
Proposed
amendments
of those
building
blocks
are
naturally.
related
to
each
other.
(Pp.
34-
37)
All
parts
of the
petition
would
amend
procedures
relative to the
development
and
implementation of
educational
standards.
The
first
section would
operate as
a
reset button
to return the curriculum
frameworks~to
the status
quo
ante.
The
second
and
third
sections
would amend
the
general laws
to
require
two tiers of
committees
to
participate in the
development and
review of
curriculum
frameworks
and to
impose
certain
requirements
for
ownership,
copyright,
and usage
permissions
for the
curriculum frameworks.
The
fourth section
would
amend
procedures relative
to
the
release
of assessments,
which
are
used
to measure
student
learning against the
frameworks. (Pp.
37
-44).
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
18/71
A
R
GU
M
EN
T
I
.
TH
E
P
R
OP
OS
E
D
LA
W
IS
I
N
P
RO
P
ER
F
OR
M
F
O
R
CERTIFICATION
UNDER AR
T
IC
L
E
4
8.
A
do
p
te
d
i
n
19
1
8,
Am
e
nd
me
n
t A
r
ti
c
le
4
8
o
f
t
he
Ma
ss
a
ch
u
se
t
ts
C
o
ns
ti
t
ut
i
on
p
ro
vi
d
es
fo
r
t
h
e
in
it
i
at
i
ve
p
et
i
ti
o
n:
a m
ec
h
an
i
sm
t
h
ro
ug
h
wh
i
ch
c
i
ti
ze
n
s
ma
y
pr
o
po
s
e
a
l
a
w
or
c
o
ns
t
it
ut
i
on
a
l a
me
n
dm
e
nt
f
o
r
ap
p
ro
v
al
by
th
e
v
o
te
rs
o
n
t
he
s
ta
t
ew
id
e
ba
l
lo
t
.
As
a
fi
rs
t
st
e
p
i
n
th
e
p
ro
c
es
s
,
i
n
it
iative
petitions are
s
ub
m
it
t
ed
t
o
th
e
A
t
to
r
ne
y
G
en
e
ra
l
f
o
r
he
r re
v
ie
w
an
d
c
er
t
if
i
ca
ti
o
n th
a
t
t
he
p
et
i
ti
o
n
me
e
ts
th
e
r
e
qu
i
re
me
n
ts
of
A
r
ti
cl
e
4
8
. A
mo
ng
ot
h
er
t
h
in
g
s,
t
h
e
A
t
to
rn
e
y
G
e
ne
r
al
m
us
t
c
er
ti
f
y
t
ha
t
t
h
e
m
ea
su
r
e
a
nd
t
he
t
it
l
e
t
h
er
e
of
a
re
i
n
p
r
op
e
r
f
or
m
f
o
r s
ub
m
is
s
io
n
to
t
h
e
p
e
op
l
e.
A
me
n
d.
Ar
t
.
4
8
,
T
he
In
i
ti
a
ti
ve
,
P
a
rt
I
I
,
Se
c
ti
o
n
3
.
I
f
th
e
A
tt
o
rn
ey
G
en
er
a
l do
es
no
t
s
o
ce
r
ti
f
y,
th
e
m
e
as
u
re
m
a
y
n
ot
be
f
il
e
d
w
it
h
th
e
S
ec
r
et
a
ry
of
St
a
ke
f
o
r pr
e
pa
r
at
io
n
of
t
he
b
la
nk
s
f
or
g
at
h
er
i
ng
t
he
n
e
ce
s
sa
r
y
s
ig
na
t
ur
e
s
t
o
ad
v
an
ce
th
e
petition
to
t
h
e ne
x
t
s
t
ag
e.
I
d
.
-T
h
e pl
a
in
t
if
fs
ra
is
e
t
w
o
fo
rm
-
b
as
e
d
c
h
al
le
n
ge
s
to
th
e
A
tt
o
rn
e
y
Ge
n
er
a
l'
s
c
e
rt
i
fi
ca
t
io
n
o
f I
ni
t
ia
t
iv
e
P
e
ti
t
io
n
15
-
12
:
t
he
y
a
s
se
r
t t
h
at
th
e
me
a
su
re
i
s
n
o
t
in
p
ro
p
er
f
or
m
b
ec
a
us
e
i
t
do
e
s
n
ot
pr
o
po
s
e
a
l
a
w
o
r
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
19/71
i
c
o
ns
t
it
u
ti
o
na
l
am
e
nd
m
en
t
a
n
d
b
ec
a
us
e
t
h
e
en
a
ct
i
ng
s
ty
l
e
r
e
qu
i
re
d
b
y
G
.L
.
c
.
4
,
§
3
,
w
a
s
n
ot
r
ep
r
od
u
ce
d
w
o
r
d
fo
r
-
wo
r
d
a
t
t
h
e
to
p
. S
ee
Br
i
ef
o
f
P
l
ai
n
ti
f
fs
/
A
p
pe
l
l
an
t
s (
P
l
tf
.
B
r
.
)
a
t
11
-2
1
,
3
3-
35
.
Bo
t
h
c
on
t
en
t
io
n
s
sh
o
u
ld
f
ai
l
.
A.
P
r
op
e
r
ly
R
e
ad
a
s a
W
h
ol
e
,
t
he
I
n
it
i
at
i
ve
Pe
t
it
i
on
Pr
o
po
s
es
a
L
aw
.
An
i
ni
t
ia
t
iv
e
p
e
ti
t
io
n
t
ha
t
d
oe
s
n
o
t
p
ro
p
os
e
ei
t
he
r
a
l
aw
or
a
c
o
ns
t
it
u
ti
o
na
l
a
me
n
dm
e
n
t
i
s
n
ot
i
n
p
ro
p
er
form
for
certification
by
the
Attorney
General.
S
e
e
Am
e
nd
.
Ar
t
.
4
8
,
T
he
I
n
i
ti
a
ti
v
e,
P
a
rt
I
I,
Se
c
t
io
n
A
n
i
ni
t
ia
t
iv
e
p
e
ti
t
i
on
sh
a
l
l
s
e
t
fo
r
th
t
h
e
f
ul
l
t
e
x
t
of
t
he
co
ns
t
it
u
ti
o
na
l
.
am
e
n
dm
e
nt
o
r
l
aw
w
h
ic
h
is
p
r
op
o
s
ed
b
y
t
h
e
p
et
i
t
io
n
. )
;
Pa
i
sn
e
r
v
.
A
t
to
r
ne
y
G
e
ne
r
a
l,
3
90
M
as
s
.
5
93
,
5
98
-5
9
9
(
19
8
3)
(t
o
be
i
n
p
r
op
e
r
fo
r
m
f
o
r
s
u
bm
i
ss
i
o
n
to
th
e
.
vo
t
er
s
,
i
ni
t
ia
t
i
ve
un
d
er
A
rt
i
cl
e
4
8
mu
s
t
pr
o
po
s
e
e
it
h
er
a
c
on
s
ti
t
ut
i
on
a
l
a
me
n
dm
e
nt
o
r
a
l
a
w
.4
F
or
p
ur
p
os
e
s
o
f
A
rt
i
cl
e
4
8
,
t
h
is
C
ou
r
t
ha
s
d
es
c
ri
b
e
d a
l
aw
as
i
nc
l
u
di
n
g
a
me
a
su
r
e
wi
t
h
bi
n
di
n
g
e
ff
e
ct
,
or
as
i
mp
o
rt
i
ng
`
a
g
en
e
r
al
r
u
le
of
c
o
nd
u
ct
w
it
h
a
p
pr
o
pr
i
at
e
m
e
an
s
f
o
r
i
ts
en
f
or
c
e
me
n
t
b
y
s
o
me
a
u
th
o
ri
t
y
po
s
se
s
si
n
g
s
ov
e
re
i
gn
p
ow
e
r
o
ve
r
t
he
4
S
im
i
la
r
t
o
th
e
me
a
s
ur
e
a
t
i
s
su
e
i
n
P
a
is
n
er
,
I
n
it
i
at
i
ve
Pe
t
it
i
on
1
5
-
1
2
s
ug
g
es
t
s
no
co
n
st
i
tu
t
i
on
a
l
a
me
n
dm
e
nt
.
T
h
er
e
f
or
e
,
t
he
on
l
y
re
l
ev
a
nt
i
nq
u
i
ry
i
s
wh
e
th
e
r i
t
pr
o
p
os
e
s
a
la
w
.
.
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
20/71
s
u
bj
e
ct
;
i
t
im
p
li
es
co
mm
a
nd
a
nd
n
o
t
en
t
re
a
ty
.
'
M
a
zz
on
e
v.
A
t
to
rn
e
y Ge
n
er
al
,
43
2
M
a
ss
.
5
1
5,
5
30
(
2
00
0)
(citing Opinion of
the Justices
to
the House
of
.
Re
p
re
se
n
ta
ti
v
es
,
26
2
M
as
s.
6
0
4,
6
05
(
19
28
)
).
1
.
T
h
e
Ef
f
ec
t
o
f
a
Pe
ti
t
io
n
Mu
s
t
Be
A
s
se
ss
e
d
in
It
s
En
t
ir
e
ty
.
In
d
ec
i
di
ng
t
o
c
er
ti
f
y
In
i
ti
a
ti
v
e P
e
ti
t
io
n
15
-1
2,
t
he
A
tt
or
n
ey
G
e
ne
ra
l
p
r
op
e
rl
y
C
o
ns
id
e
re
d
t
he
p
e
ti
ti
o
n
in its entirety.
A
n
in
it
i
at
iv
e
p
et
i
ti
o
n
th
a
t
d
oe
s
,
on
t
he
w
h
ol
e,
st
a
te
a
`
g
en
e
ra
l
ru
l
e
o
f
co
nd
u
ct
w
it
h
a
p
pr
o
pr
ia
t
e
m
ea
ns
fo
r
i
ts
en
f
or
c
em
en
t
'
d
oe
s
pr
o
po
se
a
l
aw
fo
r
pu
r
po
se
s
o
f
a
r
t.
4
8
.
M
az
zo
n
e,
43
2
Ma
ss
.
~
t 5
30
-
53
1
,
(
em
p
ha
s
is
a
d
de
d,
c
i
ta
t
io
n
om
i
tt
e
d)
.
Ne
a
rl
y
a
ll
o
f
th
e
p
l
ai
nt
i
ff
s
'
ar
gu
m
en
t
o
n
t
h
is
p
oi
n
t
a
dd
re
s
se
s
S
ec
ti
o
n
1
of the petition in complete
is
o
la
ti
o
n.
Se
e
,
e.
g.
,
Pl
t
f.
B
r.
a
t
1
2 S
ec
t
io
n
1
of
t
h
e
P
et
i
ti
on
is
n
ei
t
he
r
a
l
aw
n
or
a
co
n
st
i
tu
ti
o
na
l
a
me
n
dm
en
t
)
.
B
ut
t
h
e pl
ai
n
ti
f
fs
ci
t
e
n
o a
ut
h
or
i
ty
-
-
a
nd
n
on
e
ex
is
t
s
-
- t
o
su
p
po
r
t
t
he
pr
op
o
si
t
io
n
t
ha
t
e
v
er
y
s
ec
t
io
n
o
f
a
n
i
n
it
ia
t
iv
e
p
et
i
ti
o
n
mu
s
t i
ts
el
f
p
r
op
os
e
a
la
w
.
I
n
de
ed
,
su
c
h
a
r
e
qu
i
re
m
en
t
wo
u
ld
b
e
a
b
su
r
d.
I
te
m
s
s
u
ch
a
s
fi
n
di
n
gs
,
d
e
cl
a
ra
t
io
ns
o
f
pu
r
po
se
,
w
he
r
ea
s
cl
a
us
es
,
s
e
ve
r
ab
il
i
ty
c
la
u
se
s,
a
n
d
e
ff
e
ct
iv
e
d
at
e
c
la
u
se
s
a
re
co
m
mo
n
fe
a
tu
r
es
i
n
a
ll
s
t
at
u
te
s,
ev
en
t
ho
u
gh
t
he
y
d
o
n
o
t
th
em
s
el
v
es
,
12
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
21/71
c
on
si
de
re
d in
a
rt
if
ici
al
is
ol
at
io
n,
co
ns
ti
tu
te
fr
ees
ta
nd
in
g
la
ws.
Su
ch
s
ta
tu
to
ry
f
eat
ur
es
ar
e a
n
ac
ce
pt
ed
par
t
of
th
e
L
egi
sl
at
ur
e'
s la
w
m
ak
ing
p
owe
r,
an
d
th
e
p
eo
pl
e'
s
po
we
r
un
de
r
Ar
ti
cl
e 4
8
is
g
ene
ra
ll
y
co
ns
id
er
ed
co
ex
te
ns
iv
e wi
th
th
e
Leg
is
la
tu
re
's
.
Pa
is
ne
r,
39
0
Ma
ss
.
a
t
60
1.
In
de
ed
, t
he
pe
tit
io
n
a
t
i
ss
ue
he
re
c
on
ta
in
s
b
ot
h
a
se
ve
ra
bi
li
ty
c
lau
se
(
Se
ct
io
n
5
}
an
d an
e
ff
ec
ti
ve
da
te
cl
au
se
(
Se
ct
io
n
6)
,
bu
t
pl
ai
nti
ff
s
do
n
ot
s
ug
ge
st
th
at
t
hei
r i
nc
lu
sio
n
re
nd
er
s
the
pe
ti
tio
n
n
on
c
er
ti
fi
ab
le,
as
th
ey
do
w
it
h
r
es
pe
ct
t
o
Se
ct
io
n
1.
It
is
t
he o
ve
ra
ll
s
ub
sta
nc
e
o
f
a
pe
ti
ti
on
, no
t
th
e
va
ga
rie
s
of
it
s
or
ga
ni
za
ti
on
al
di
vi
si
on
,
th
at
d
ic
ta
tes
wh
et
he
r i
t
p
ro
po
se
s
a l
aw
.
5
B
ec
au
se
th
e
s
ub
st
anc
e
of
this
petition
would
amend
existing
e
du
ca
ti
ona
l
la
w,
it
w
as
in
pr
op
er
f
or
m
fo
r
c
er
ti
fi
ca
ti
on
b
y
t
he
A
tt
or
ne
y
G
en
er
al
.
F
or
ex
am
pl
e,
th
e p
et
it
io
n
at
i
ss
ue
c
ou
ld
e
as
ily
h
av
e
be
en
dr
af
te
d a
s
o
ne
l
on
g
s
ec
ti
on
ra
th
er
th
an
a
s s
ix
se
par
at
e
on
es
,
th
us
co
mb
in
in
g
t
he
p
ro
vi
si
on
s
th
at
pl
ai
nt
iff
s
a
rg
ue
d
o n
ot
p
ro
po
se
a
l
aw
(
Se
ct
io
n
1)
a
nd
that plainly do not
propose laws when considered
in
is
ol
at
io
n
(
Se
ct
io
ns
5
an
d
6)
w
it
h
pro
vi
si
on
s
t
ha
t
t
he
pl
ai
nt
if
fs
ac
kn
ow
le
dge
d
o
pr
op
os
e l
aw
s
(S
ec
ti
on
s 2 3,
a
nd
4
).
Un
de
r
p
la
in
ti
ffs
'
s
ec
ti
on s
pe
ci
fic
f
oc
us
,
th
is
si
ngl
e
se
ct
io
n pe
ti
ti
on
w
ou
ld
c
le
ar
ly
p
ro
po
se
a
l
aw.
It
i
s
in
co
nc
ei
vab
le
th
at
the
c
er
ti
fi
ca
tio
n
of
pe
ti
tio
ns
un
de
r
Ar
ti
cl
e 48
sh
ou
ld
tu
rn
on
h
ow
t
he
y
m
ay
b
e
di
vi
de
d
int
o
s
ec
tio
ns
.
13
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
22/71
2.
Co
ns
id
ere
d
in
Its
En
tir
et
y,
th
e
M
ea
sur
e
W
ou
ld
Un
qu
est
io
na
bly
A
me
nd
Ex
is
tin
g
E
du
ca
tio
n
La
w.
Considered as a whole, this petition proposes
a
law
be
ca
us
e it
wou
ld
a
me
nd
e
xi
sti
ng
le
ga
l
r
equ
ir
eme
nt
s
g
ov
ern
in
g ed
uc
ati
on
al
cu
rr
icu
lu
m
fr
ame
wo
rks
an
d
a
ss
ess
me
nts
.
Se
ct
io
n
1
o
f
th
e
pet
it
io
n
i
s a
r
es
et
bu
tt
on
t
o
ret
ur
n
t
ho
se st
an
dar
ds
t
o t
he p
oi
nt
be
for
e
th
e
mos
t r
ece
nt
a
dop
ti
on
o
f
ne
w s
ta
nd
ard
s
wi
th
w
hic
h
th
e p
eti
ti
on
ers
d
isa
gr
ee
.
Sec
ti
ons
2
an
d
3
w
oul
d
Cha
ng
e t
he
pr
oc
ess
fo
r
a
dop
ti
ng
ne
w
s
tan
da
rd
s
in
t
he
f
ut
ure
b
y r
eq
uir
in
g tw
o tie
rs
of
c
omm
it
tee
s,
ce
rt
ai
n
wa
rr
ant
s be
fo
re
the
Bo
ar
d
cou
ld
a
do
pt
n
ew
f
ram
ew
ork
s,
c
op
y
rig
ht
pr
ote
ct
ion
f
or
t
he
fr
am
ew
ork
s,
an
d
g
ra
nti
ng
of
ce
rta
in
p
er
mis
si
ons
t
o u
se
th
em.
Sec
ti
on
4
wou
ld
a
me
nd p
ro
ce
dur
es
go
ve
rn
ing
p
ub
lic
ac
ces
s
to
ass
es
sme
nt
s,
wh
ich
te
st
st
ude
nt
lea
rn
in
g
of
th
e
f
ram
ew
or
ks.
Se
ct
ion
s
5
an
d
i
ns
tr
uct
h
ow
to
i
mp
le
men
t
t
he
ch
ang
es
m
ade
b
y
Se
cti
on
s
1
t
hr
oug
h
4.
Co
ns
ide
ri
ng
th
e
l
eg
al
ef
fe
ct
o
f
al
l th
ese
sections together,
the
Attorney General correctly
co
nc
lu
ded
th
at
th
e pr
op
os
ed
m
ea
sur
e
wo
ul
d
i
mpo
se
g
en
er
al
ru
le
s
o
f co
nd
uc
t
go
ve
rni
ng
th
e
Bo
ar
d,
t
he
Co
mm
iss
io
ner
,
an
d th
e
D
ep
art
me
nt
i
n
th
e
d
is
ch
arg
e
of
the
ir
du
ti
es
.
S
ee
Op
ini
on
of
th
e
Jus
ti
ce
s, 26
2 M
ass
.
i~
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
23/71
at
605
(initiative
petition
proposes a
law
by
prescribing
general rule
of
conduct).
Even
the
plaintiffs acknowledge
that
the
petition
proposes
binding
changes
to th e
substantive law
governing
the
work
of
the
Board,
the
Commissioner,
and
the
Department.
See
Pltf. Br.
at
12
-13
(stating
that
law
enacted
by
initiative
petition
could
amend
G.L. c. 69
to
restrict
the
Board's
discretion
over
curriculum
frameworks)
and
14
(acknowledging
that
Sections
2
-4
of
the
initiative
petition
would
amend the
process
by
which
the
Board
may
adopt
future
frameworks ).
Properly
concluding
that
the
purpose
of
the
petition,
considered
in
its
entirety,
is
to
effectuate
binding
changes
in
existing law,
the
Attorney
General
correctly
certified it.
3.
Even
If
Considered
in
Isolation,
Section
of
the
Measure
Would
Have
Legal
Force
and
Effect
and
Therefore
Proposes
a
Law.
Furthermore,
even if
Section
could
be
assessed
in
isolation
from the
other
five
sections
of
Initiative
Petition 15
-12
--
which
it
may
not
be,
as
discussed
above
--
it
would
still
propose a
law
requiring
certification by
the
Attorney
General
because
it
effectuates
a
change
in
the
existing
legal
requirements
governing
educational
standards.
15
-
8/18/2019 SJC-12064 03 Appellee Attorney General Brief
24/71
Plaintiffs
argue
that
the
petition.
does
not
propose
a
law
because of two purported flaws in
its
Section
1:
(a) Section
1
would
lack
binding effect if adopted;
and (b)
Section
purports to
rescind a Board
vote
that
itself was
of no legal
consequence.
See Pltf.
Br.
at
11
-21. This argument
is
without merit.
Section 1
provides:
Notwithstanding
the
provisions
of
any general or
special
law to the
contrary,
the
vote taken by
the
[Board]
on
July
21, 2010,
to
adopt the
.Common
Core
State
Standards
for Mathematics and
English
Language
Arts is hereby
rescinded. The
curriculum
frameworks
in
Mathematics
and
English
Language
Arts
that
were
in
effect
prior to
that
date are hereby restored.
JA 63.
Without
benefit
of
citation