## Facts

- Two substantially similar initiative petitions (Nos. 21-11 and 21-12) were filed proposing a law governing the contract-based relationship between network companies and app-based drivers.
- The petitions would classify app-based drivers as independent contractors in their relationship with network companies and set minimum compensation and limited benefits and protections.
- The petitions also included provisions classifying drivers as independent contractors for “all other state laws” and shifting the burden of proof regarding whether a person is an app-based driver.
- The Attorney General certified the petitions for the ballot under Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution.
- Twelve registered Massachusetts voters sued the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth, challenging the certifications as violating Article 48’s related-subjects requirement; proponents intervened in support of certification.
- A single justice reserved and reported the case to the full Supreme Judicial Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the initiative petitions violated Article 48 by containing subjects that were not related or mutually dependent.
2. Whether the Attorney General’s ballot summaries were unfair under Article 48 due to inadequate disclosure of the petitions’ effects (particularly on tort liability).

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court unanimously held the petitions violated Article 48’s related-subjects requirement.
- The court ruled the petitions combined at least two substantively distinct policy decisions: (1) regulation of the company–driver relationship (classification, compensation, and benefits) and (2) changes affecting tort liability to third parties and burden-of-proof rules.
- The court concluded the Attorney General erred in certifying the petitions and ordered they could not appear on the 2022 statewide ballot.
- Because the related-subjects defect was dispositive, the court did not reach a full determination on the fairness of the ballot summaries.

## Legal Principles

- Under Article 48, an initiative petition must contain only subjects that are “related” or “mutually dependent,” sharing a common purpose to which each provision is germane.
- The related-subjects inquiry asks whether the petition is a coherent proposal that a reasonable voter can accept or reject as a unified statement of public policy, with sufficient operational relatedness among substantive parts.
- Combining distinct policy choices in one petition violates Article 48 by forcing an all-or-nothing vote and enabling logrolling, especially where a separate policy choice is embedded in obscure drafting.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated the certifications because the petitions paired driver-compensation and classification rules with separate changes to tort-liability and proof rules affecting third parties, failing Article 48’s related-subjects requirement and barring ballot placement.


El Koussa v. Att'y Gen., 188 N.E.3d 510 (Mass. 2022)