Question 1: Should the auditor oversee the legislature

Massachusetts voters elect a state auditor every four years. But despite the word "audit" in the job title, the auditor isn't focused on financial irregularities; instead, they ensure that state agencies follow existing laws and regulations.

The auditor has substantial powers, including broad, court-supported access to all manner of documents and records. But there are limits to this investigative power, and Question 1 on the November ballot is about expanding those limits.

Question 1 asks voters whether the auditor should be allowed to investigate the state legislature, overseeing and evaluating at least some of its activities.

The ballot question is being advanced by the current auditor, Diana DiZoglio, and is generally opposed by the legislature.

As part of our commitment to help voters understand state ballot questions, we have looked at other states and spoken with experts and advocates on both sides of the issue. We found that:

• Some legislative activities are off-limits to executive interference, including from the auditor. Votes, debates, committee assignments, policy priorities — these are all "core legislative functions" that the Massachusetts auditor will not be able to examine even if Question 1 passes.
• Other legislative activities might be subject to audit, such as compliance with employee training rules, cybersecurity norms, and purchasing practices.
• While auditors in other states occasionally investigate such non-core activities, they rely on cooperation from legislators. Looking around the country, we could not find any examples of legislative audits conducted without lawmakers' consent.
• Even if Question 1 passes, legislators will have a lot of leverage to resist investigations. They might drag their feet, refuse to comply, or use their budgetary power to handcuff or even defund the auditor's office. If that happens, the fight may shift to the courts, where the outcome is hard to predict.