Oberlies v. Attorney General

479 Mass. 823 (2018) · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · June 18, 2018 · No. SJC-12472; SJC-12473

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reviewed challenges involving two initiative petitions concerning nurse-to-patient staffing ratios and hospital financial-asset disclosures. It held that the staffing-ratio and workforce-reduction provisions in Initiative Petition 17-07 were sufficiently related under article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, upholding the Attorney General's certification. The court also upheld the refusal to certify Initiative Petition 17-08 because its financial-disclosure requirement was not sufficiently related or mutually dependent on the staffing provisions.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Writing for the Court
Lenk, J.; Gants, C.J.; Gaziano, J.; Lowy, J.; Budd, J.; Cypher, J.; Kafker, J.
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts
Decision date
June 18, 2018
Docket number
SJC-12472; SJC-12473
Procedural posture
Consolidated challenges in the county court to the Attorney General's certification of Initiative Petition 17-07 and refusal to certify Initiative Petition 17-08 were reserved and reported by a single justice to the full Supreme Judicial Court.
Standard of review
De novo review of the Attorney General's decision whether to certify an initiative petition under art. 48.
Precedential value
Published precedential decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Parties
Amanda S. Oberlies & others, Donna Kelly Williams & others v. Attorney General & another, Attorney General & another
Disposition
remanded

Topics

election lawconstitutional lawhealth lawadministrative law

Practice areas

constitutional lawelection lawhealth lawadministrative law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the nurse-to-patient assignment limits and the workforce-reduction restriction in Initiative Petition 17-07 are sufficiently related or mutually dependent under art. 48.
  2. Whether Initiative Petition 17-07 is in proper form for submission to the voters under art. 48.
  3. Whether the financial-asset disclosure requirement in Initiative Petition 17-08 is sufficiently related or mutually dependent to the nurse-to-patient staffing provisions under art. 48.

Holdings

  1. The provisions are sufficiently related under art. 48 because both determine how nurse-to-patient staffing ratios will be implemented, and the workforce-reduction restriction addresses a foreseeable consequence of adopting the ratios.
  2. Initiative Petition 17-07 was in proper form under art. 48.
  3. The financial-asset disclosure requirement and the nurse-to-patient staffing provisions are neither sufficiently related nor mutually dependent under art. 48; the Attorney General properly declined to certify Petition 17-08.

Key quotations

Because the restriction on staff reduction pertains to implementation of the nurse-to-patient ratios, we conclude that these two elements of the proposal form "a unified statement of public policy," Carney v. Attorney Gen., 447 Mass. 218, 231 (2006) (Carney I), and therefore are related "within the meaning of art. 48."
The financial disclosure requirement, therefore, has "only a marginal relationship" to the nurse-to-patient staffing ratios.

Factual background

Initiative Petition 17-07 proposed statutory nurse-to-patient assignment limits for specified Massachusetts health care facilities and prohibited implementation of those limits from reducing the facility's health care workforce. Initiative Petition 17-08 contained the same provisions but also required facilities accepting Commonwealth funds to disclose annually their financial assets, including assets of holding, parent, subsidiary, and affiliated companies, for public release by the Health Policy Commission. The Attorney General certified Petition 17-07 but declined to certify Petition 17-08 under art. 48.

Procedural history

The Attorney General certified Initiative Petition 17-07, which proposed nurse-to-patient assignment limits and a restriction against reducing other health care workforce staffing to implement those limits. The Attorney General declined to certify Initiative Petition 17-08 because its additional hospital financial-asset disclosure provision was not sufficiently related to the staffing provisions. Opponents of Petition 17-07 and proponents of Petition 17-08 sought mandamus, certiorari, and declaratory relief in the county court; the cases were reported to the full court.

Remand instructions

Remand to the county court for entry of a judgment declaring that the Attorney General's decisions to certify Initiative Petition 17-07 and decline to certify Initiative Petition 17-08 complied with art. 48.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…