## Facts

- Qualified voters initiated two proposed laws for submission at a statewide election under Massachusetts Constitution amend. art. 48 (initiative and referendum).
- One proposal sought to amend the campaign finance statute to prohibit political contributions by labor unions or persons acting on their behalf; the other required labor unions to file reports.
- The Attorney General prepared and certified summaries for each proposed initiative, and the Secretary of the Commonwealth prepared to place the measures on the ballot.
- Union officers and representatives opposed the measures and filed six consolidated actions, including mandamus to prevent ballot submission and certiorari to challenge the Attorney General’s summaries/certificates.
- Additional actions challenged the Everett registrars’ certification of signatures on initiative petitions, including a claimed mismatch between a signer’s petition signature and registered name.
- During the initiative process, the initiative proponents made a limited textual correction to the proposal by removing an erroneous statutory reference and obtained Attorney General certification of that change.

## Issues

1. Whether a minor correction to an initiative petition text, certified by the Attorney General, was permissible under art. 48 without materially changing the measure’s substance.
2. What legal effect the proposed amendment (as drafted) would have on the existing campaign finance statute, given intervening legislative restructuring of the statute’s sentences.
3. Whether courts may broadly review registrars’ checking and certification of initiative-petition signatures beyond the limited statutory review for forgery or fraud.
4. Whether delayed challenges to signature certification were barred by laches in light of the elapsed time and progression of the election process.
5. Whether constitutional objections raised at the submission stage required blocking placement of the labor-union contribution measure on the ballot.

## Decision

- Mandamus issued against the Secretary of the Commonwealth as to the initiative concerning labor-union political contributions.
- The other five petitions were dismissed (including challenges to the reporting initiative’s submission, the Attorney General’s summaries/certificates, and the registrars’ signature certifications).
- The court treated the proponents’ certified correction as a permissible “perfecting” amendment that did not materially change the proposal’s substance and required the measure to be handled in its corrected form.
- The court held that, as drafted, the proposed amendment to the campaign finance statute would omit a provision that had previously been moved into the statute’s first sentence by a legislative amendment.
- The court held there was no statutory mechanism for general judicial re-checking of registrars’ signature determinations, apart from the limited review for forgery or fraud, and that late-filed signature challenges were barred by laches.

## Legal Principles

- A “perfecting” amendment to an initiative petition that corrects an error without materially changing the substance of the proposed law is permissible under art. 48; once certified, the proposal is evaluated and processed as amended.
- In assessing an initiative that amends an existing statute, courts determine the proposal’s actual legal effect on the current statutory text, including the consequences of prior legislative restructuring of the statute.
- Absent explicit statutory authorization, registrars’ certifications of initiative-petition signatures are not subject to broad judicial review; review is limited to the narrow grounds specified by statute (forgery or fraud).
- Laches may bar election-related challenges when plaintiffs delay unreasonably despite having an adequate opportunity to discover the basis for the claim and the electoral process has advanced.

## Conclusion

The court enforced procedural limits governing Massachusetts initiative petitions by permitting minor certified corrective amendments that do not alter substance, construing the initiative’s true effect on existing statutory language, restricting judicial review of signature certifications to narrow statutory grounds, and dismissing untimely signature challenges under laches while granting targeted mandamus relief concerning the Secretary’s handling of the labor-union contribution initiative.


Bowe v. Sec’y of the Commonwealth, 320 Mass. 230, 69 N.E.2d 115 (Mass. 1946)