Amendment from Sen. Kelly Dooner sought to remove exclusivity language from a legislative records bill; the measure failed 33-6 before the underlying bill passed

By John Barrella

July 31, 2026

BOSTON — The Massachusetts Senate this week rejected an amendment that would have removed language from a bill establishing a new process for requesting legislative records, ahead of a statewide ballot question this November that would take a broader approach to the same issue.

The bill, S.3200, “An Act promoting transparency and public access in state government,” creates records access officers in the Senate and House, sets a 10-business-day window for responding to records requests, and establishes an appeals process running through each chamber’s Committee on Rules and, ultimately, Suffolk Superior Court. The bill also states that this process is the “sole and exclusive remedy” for obtaining legislative records.

State Senator Kelly Dooner, a Taunton Republican who represents Middleborough, offered Amendment #22 to strike that exclusivity language.

In remarks explaining her amendment, Dooner said it was intended to remove language that could be interpreted as limiting future public records laws or the outcome of the ballot question. “My amendment takes a simple and prudent approach,” she said, “removing language that could be interpreted as limiting future public records laws — or limiting the will of the voters.”

The amendment failed on Roll Call #216, 6 to 33. Voting in favor were Dooner, Peter Durant, Ryan Fattman, John Keenan, Patrick O’Connor, and Bruce Tarr. The remaining 33 senators voting, from both parties, voted against the amendment, leaving the bill’s exclusivity provision intact.

Dooner said that regardless of a person’s views on the ballot question itself, attempting to predetermine its legal effect before voters have a chance to weigh in “is not good lawmaking.”

S.3200 originated as House Bill 5469, which passed the House 125-28 on June 3 after being reported favorably by the Committee on Ways and Means and advanced to a vote the same day. It was read and referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means on July 6, which amended and renumbered it as S.3200. The bill’s legislative history does not reflect a public hearing prior to House passage.

The bill would apply to the Legislature, which — along with the Governor’s office — has historically taken the position that it is not covered by the state’s existing public records law. That law, G.L. c. 4, § 7(26), applies to cities, towns, and executive branch agencies, which must disclose records unless they fall under one of a limited set of statutory exemptions, including personnel records, materials related to ongoing investigations, and attorney-client privileged communications.

The Governor’s office has separately argued, and the Supreme Judicial Court held in Lambert v. Executive Director of Judicial Nominating Council, that the Governor is not explicitly named as an “agency” under the statute and is therefore not required to disclose records under it. The Legislature has taken a similar position with respect to its own records. Massachusetts remains the only state where the Legislature, the Governor’s office, and the judiciary all claim exemption from public records requirements.

The ballot measure Dooner referenced is Question 1, one of nine statewide questions certified for the November 2026 ballot. Backers of the initiative, an indirect initiated state statute, submitted more than 90,000 signatures to the Legislature ahead of a December 2025 deadline. Because the Legislature did not enact the measure itself, it now advances directly to voters.

Question 1 would subject most records held by the Legislature and the Governor’s office to the state’s existing public records law, with two narrow carve-outs: documents related to the development of policy positions, and communications between a legislator’s office and a constituent about access to government services.

State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, the public face of the Question 1 campaign, has publicly criticized the Senate’s bill as a “poison bill” intended to undercut the ballot question before voters have their say. DiZoglio, who separately won a 2024 ballot question authorizing her office to audit the Legislature — an audit top Democratic leaders have since declined to fully comply with — has argued that voters, not the Legislature, should decide the outcome “at the ballot.”

The House’s version of the bill, unlike the Senate’s, was explicitly described by legislative leaders as an effort to address the substance of the ballot question through statute rather than let it go to a vote. The Senate’s own rollout of its bill did not reference the ballot question.

Dooner said in remarks accompanying her amendment that she supports subjecting all elected offices in the Commonwealth to the state’s public records law. She also said that public confidence in government at the federal, state, and local levels is, in her assessment, the lowest she has observed in her lifetime. “Transparency is strengthened,” she said, “when we avoid unnecessary legal barriers and allow these important questions to be resolved by the purest form of the democratic process — which is at the ballot.”

Supporters of S.3200 have not publicly detailed their reasoning for including the exclusivity provision. The bill’s fiscal note estimates $1 million in implementation costs for fiscal year 2027, including $250,000 each for the Governor’s office, the Senate, and the House, and $250,000 for joint legislative operations. If passed, the law would take effect January 1, 2027, and would apply only to records made or received on or after January 6, 2027.

Question 1 will appear before voters in November regardless of the outcome of S.3200.