Sam Drysdale
State House News Service

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.