Case Title: Colpack v. Attorney General

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13273

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2022-06-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-13273 
 
THOMAS COLPACK & others1  vs.  ATTORNEY GENERAL & another.2 
 
 
 
Suffolk.     May 4, 2022. - June 13, 2022. 
 
Present:  Budd, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Cypher, Kafker, Wendlandt, 
& Georges, JJ. 
 
 
Initiative.  Constitutional Law, Initiative petition, Alcoholic 
beverages.  Attorney General.  Alcoholic Liquors, License. 
 
 
 
 
Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for 
the county of Suffolk on April 12, 2022. 
 
 
The case was reported by Wendlandt, J. 
 
 
 
Katherine A. Baker (Matthew T. Brown & Louis A. Rizoli also 
present) for the plaintiffs. 
 
Anne Sterman, Assistant Attorney General (Adam Hornstine, 
Assistant Attorney General, also present) for the defendants. 
 
Damien C. Powell, for Massachusetts Package Stores 
Association, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. 
 
 
 
1 Christine M. Limoges, Michael R. Limoges, James Garrett, 
and Stephen Garrett. 
 
2 Secretary of the Commonwealth. 
2 
 
WENDLANDT, J.  Article 48 of the Amendments to the 
Massachusetts Constitution establishes procedures for "the 
popular initiative, which is the power of a specified number of 
voters to submit constitutional amendments and laws to the 
people for approval or rejection."  Art. 48, I, of the 
Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution.  As part of those 
procedures, art. 48 requires that, before an initiative petition 
may be submitted to the voters, the Attorney General must 
certify that the proposed measure is "in proper form for 
submission to the people," including, inter alia, that it 
"contains only subjects . . . which are related or which are 
mutually dependent."  Art. 48, The Initiative, II, § 3, as 
amended by art. 74 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts 
Constitution. 
The plaintiffs, opponents of Initiative Petition 21-03, "An 
Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to 21st Century Alcohol 
Retail Reform," contend that the Attorney General's 
certification of the petition was improper because the petition 
does not meet the related subjects requirement of art. 48.  We 
conclude that, although Initiative Petition 21-03 contains a 
variety of provisions affecting the licensing of retail sales of 
alcohol for off-premises consumption, the formula for assessing 
fines for violations of the licensing laws, and the conduct of a 
transaction for the sale of alcohol, these subjects form part of 
3 
 
an integrated scheme, so that the measure "presents a unified 
statement of public policy on which the voters can fairly vote 
'yes' or 'no.'"  Weiner v. Attorney General, 484 Mass. 687, 695 
(2020).  Accordingly, we affirm the Attorney General's 
certification of Initiative Petition 21-03 as in proper form to 
be submitted to the voters.3 
1.  Background.  a.  Initiative Petition 21-03.  Initiative 
Petition 21-03 proposes to amend G. L. c. 138, the statute 
governing the sale of alcoholic beverages, in several respects. 
The petition would change the Statewide limits on the total 
number of licenses for the sale of alcohol for off-premises 
consumption that any one retailer4 could hold under G. L. c. 138, 
§ 15.  Currently, G. L. c. 138, § 15, provides that no single 
retailer may be granted, "in the aggregate," more than nine 
total such licenses, including "licenses for the sale of all 
alcoholic beverages" and "licenses for the sale of wines and 
malt beverages only."  Initiative Petition 21-03 would amend 
G. L. c. 138, § 15, to increase the total aggregate number of 
"licenses for the sale of all alcoholic beverages" and "licenses 
 
3 We acknowledge the amicus brief submitted by the 
Massachusetts Package Stores Association. 
 
 
4 A retailer is a "person, firm, corporation, association, 
or other combination of persons, . . . or . . . an agent, 
employee, stockholder, officer or other person or any 
subsidiary."  G. L. c. 138, § 15. 
4 
 
for the sale of wines and malt beverages" that any single 
retailer could be granted to twelve in 2023, fifteen in 2027, 
and eighteen in 2031.  See Initiative Petition 21-03, §§ 1-3, 5-
7.  In addition, however, the petition would insert a new 
provision in G. L. c. 138, § 15, that would permit no single 
retailer to hold more than seven "licenses for the sale of all 
alcoholic beverages," with an exemption for those retailers who 
hold more than seven such licenses as of December 31, 2022.  See 
Initiative Petition 21-03, § 4. 
Initiative Petition 21-03 also would make several changes 
to the requirements governing retail sales transactions of 
alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption.  The petition 
would add a provision to G. L. c. 138, § 15, requiring that 
"[t]he in-store sale of alcoholic beverages by a licensee . . . 
shall be conducted through a face-to-face transaction between 
the customer and the licensee or . . . an authorized employee of 
the licensee who has attained the age of [eighteen] years," and 
accordingly would add a provision prohibiting "[i]n-store 
automated or self-checkout sales of alcoholic beverages by such 
licensees."  See Initiative Petition 21-03, § 8.  Initiative 
Petition 21-03 also would amend G. L. c. 138, § 34B, to add out-
of-State drivers' licenses to the types of identification that 
reasonably could be relied upon by retailers of alcohol to 
5 
 
establish a purchaser's age.5  See Initiative Petition 21-03, 
§§ 10, 11. 
In addition, Initiative Petition 21-03 would modify the 
formula for calculating fines that could be assessed in lieu of 
suspension of a license to sell alcohol under G. L. c. 138, 
§ 23, for violations of the provisions of G. L. c. 138 governing 
sales of alcoholic liquors.  General Laws c. 138, § 23, 
currently provides that the fine for a violation of the 
licensing laws is "[f]ifty per cent of the per diem gross profit 
multiplied by the number of license suspension days, gross 
profit to be determined as gross receipts on alcoholic beverage 
sales less the invoiced cost of goods sold per diem."  The 
petition would change the definition of gross profit to "gross 
receipts on all retail sales less the invoiced cost of goods 
sold per diem."  See Initiative Petition 21-03, § 9. 
b.  Prior proceedings.  By August 4, 2021, ten registered 
Massachusetts voters had signed and filed "An Initiative 
Petition for a Law Relative to 21st Century Alcohol Retail 
Reform" with the Attorney General; this petition subsequently 
 
 
5 Currently, G. L. c. 138, § 34B, permits retailers to avoid 
liability for sales of alcohol to underage purchasers if the 
retailer reasonably relies upon a Massachusetts driver's 
license, a Massachusetts "liquor purchase identification card," 
a United States passport, a passport issued by another country 
recognized by the United States, or a United States military 
identification card as evidence that the purchaser is at least 
twenty-one years old. 
6 
 
was designated Initiative Petition 21-03.  On September 1, 2021, 
the Attorney General certified to the Secretary of the 
Commonwealth (Secretary) that Initiative Petition 21-03 was in 
proper form for submission to the people, that it contained only 
subjects that were related or mutually dependent, that it was 
not substantially the same as any measure qualified for 
submission to the people at either of the two preceding biennial 
elections, and that it contained only matters that were not 
excluded from the initiative process under art. 48. 
In accordance with the requirements of art. 48, the 
Attorney General also prepared a summary of the petition to be 
printed on the forms used for gathering additional signatures 
and transmitted the summary to the Secretary with the 
September 1 certification letter.  Also on September 1, 2021, 
the proponents of Initiative Petition 21-03 filed a copy of the 
petition with the Secretary, and the Secretary subsequently 
provided to them blank forms for the collection of signatures.  
On January 28, 2022, the Secretary transmitted Initiative 
Petition 21-03 to the clerk of the House of Representatives and 
informed the clerk that a sufficient number of signatures had 
been submitted to require the Secretary to transmit the petition 
to the Legislature. 
Subsequently, on April 12, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a 
complaint in the county court challenging the Attorney General's 
7 
 
certification of Initiative Petition 21-03 and seeking to enjoin 
the Secretary from placing the petition on the November ballot.  
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that 
the Attorney General's certification was proper.6  The single 
justice reserved and reported the case, without decision, for 
consideration by the full court. 
2.  Discussion.  a.  Standard of review.  "We review the 
Attorney General's decision regarding whether to certify a 
ballot petition de novo, bearing in mind 'the firmly established 
principle that art. 48 is to be construed to support the 
people's prerogative to initiate and adopt laws.'"  Oberlies v. 
Attorney Gen., 479 Mass. 823, 829 (2018), quoting Abdow v. 
Attorney Gen., 468 Mass. 478, 487 (2014). 
b.  Requirement that subjects be related or mutually 
dependent.  The requirement in art. 48 that the subjects of an 
initiative petition must be related or mutually dependent 
"was adopted during the constitutional convention of 1917-
1918 in response to delegates' concerns about voter 
confusion and the dangers of 'log-rolling' in the 
 
6 In the alternative, the defendants asked the court to 
dismiss the complaint because it was "not timely filed."  The 
complaint was filed more than seven months after the Attorney 
General certified Initiative Petition 21-03, and two and one-
half months after the Secretary submitted the petition to the 
Legislature, notwithstanding this court's repeated admonitions 
concerning the importance of early filing of complaints 
challenging the Attorney General's certification decisions, in 
order to avoid disrupting the Secretary's preparation and 
circulation of the Information for Voters guide.  See Dunn v. 
Attorney Gen., 474 Mass. 675, 686-687 (2016). 
8 
 
initiative process, i.e., the 'practice of including 
several propositions in one measure or proposed 
constitutional amendment so that the . . . voters will pass 
all of them, even though these propositions might not have 
passed if they had been submitted separately.'" 
 
Dunn v. Attorney Gen., 474 Mass. 675, 679 (2016), quoting Carney 
v. Attorney Gen., 447 Mass. 218, 219 n.4 (2006), S.C., 451 Mass. 
803 (2008). 
In determining whether the subjects of an initiative 
petition contain "only subjects . . . which are related," we ask 
whether "one can identify a common purpose to which each subject 
of an initiative petition can reasonably be said to be germane."  
Weiner, 484 Mass. at 691, quoting Hensley v. Attorney Gen., 474 
Mass. 651, 657 (2016).  There is no bright-line rule to follow 
in making such a determination.  Rather, the question is a 
matter of degree.  See Weiner, supra, quoting Hensley, supra; 
Carney, 447 Mass. at 226. 
"At some high level of abstraction, any two laws may be 
said to share a 'common purpose.'"  Weiner, 448 Mass. at 691, 
quoting Carney, 447 Mass. at 226.  "[R]elatedness cannot be 
defined so broadly that it allows the inclusion in a single 
petition of two or more subjects that have only a marginal 
relationship to one another, which might confuse or mislead 
voters, or which could place them in the untenable position of 
casting a single vote on two or more dissimilar subjects."  
Abdow, 468 Mass. at 499.  Accordingly, "the related subjects 
9 
 
requirement is not satisfied by a conceptual or abstract bond."  
Gray v. Attorney Gen., 474 Mass. 638, 648 (2016). 
At the same time, 
"[w]e do not construe the requirement so narrowly as to 
'frustrate the ability of voters to use the popular 
initiative as "the people's process" to bring important 
matters of concern directly to the electorate' by 
effectively confining each petition to a single subject; we 
recognize that the delegates to the constitutional 
convention that approved art. 48 permitted more than one 
subject to be included in a petition." 
 
Hensley, 474 Mass. at 657, quoting Abdow, 468 Mass. at 499. 
Accordingly, in order to balance these concerns, in 
addition to considering whether the subjects of an initiative 
petition share a common purpose, we have examined two more 
specific questions.  We have considered, first, whether "the 
similarities of an initiative's provisions dominate what each 
segment provides separately so that the petition is sufficiently 
coherent to be voted on 'yes' or 'no' by the voters."  Hensley, 
474 Mass. at 658, quoting Abdow, 468 Mass. at 500.  Second, we 
consider whether the proposed initiative "express[es] an 
operational relatedness among its substantive parts that would 
permit a reasonable voter to affirm or reject the entire 
petition as a unified statement of public policy."  Hensley, 
supra, quoting Abdow, supra at 501. 
 
We have held that initiative petitions did not meet the 
related subjects requirement where they combined two or more 
10 
 
topics that were substantively distinct, even though, at some 
high level of abstraction, the topics could be said to share a 
common purpose.  For instance, in Carney, 447 Mass. at 231-232, 
we considered an initiative petition that proposed to amend 
criminal statutes penalizing animal abuse and dismantle the 
business of parimutuel dog racing.  Although the Attorney 
General decided that these provisions were adequately related to 
"promoting the more humane treatment of dogs," id. at 224, we 
concluded that the petition did not satisfy art. 48 because 
there was "no meaningful operational relationship" between the 
provisions concerning animal abuse and those abolishing dog 
racing, id. at 231. 
Similarly, in Gray, 474 Mass. at 638, we considered an 
initiative petition that sought to end the use of Common Core 
State Standards in defining the elementary and secondary 
educational curriculum in the Commonwealth, and require the 
Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education to release 
publicly every year the questions from the prior year's 
comprehensive assessment tests.  Although we agreed that the 
content of the curriculum and assessment of student performance 
were "interconnected" at a conceptual level, "the related 
subjects requirement is not satisfied by a[n] . . . abstract 
bond."  Id. at 648.  We determined that, at "the operational 
level," the petition combined "a proposed policy of rejecting a 
11 
 
particular set of curriculum standards . . . with a proposed 
policy of increasing transparency in the standardized testing 
process at what is likely to be a greatly increased cost, 
regardless of the content of the curriculum standards used.  
These are two separate public policy issues."  Id. at 648-649.  
Thus, we concluded that, while both were "controversial public 
issues in the domain of elementary and secondary education," the 
use of the Common Core standards and the disclosure of the 
content of the prior year's assessment tests were "two separate 
public policy issues" that were "substantively distinct," such 
that combining both issues in one petition did not offer voters 
a unified statement of public policy.  Id. at 649. 
Similarly, in Anderson v. Attorney Gen., 479 Mass. 780, 
798-799 (2018), we held that an initiative petition proposing a 
constitutional amendment that would have established a graduated 
income tax on incomes over $1 million and would have earmarked 
revenues from that tax, subject to appropriation, for education 
and transportation did not meet the related subjects 
requirement.  We concluded that "[t]he two subjects of the 
earmarked funding themselves [were] not related beyond the 
broadest conceptual level of public good," and also were 
"entirely separate from the subject of a stepped rather than a 
flat-rate income tax."  Id. at 798. 
12 
 
We also have determined that initiative petitions 
containing multiple provisions involving a variety of different 
regulatory issues nonetheless may meet the related subjects 
requirement of art. 48, so long as the provisions are part of an 
"integrated scheme" of regulation.  See Weiner, 484 Mass. 
at 693, quoting Hensley, 474 Mass. at 659.  In Hensley, supra at 
658, for example, we concluded that an initiative petition that 
"la[id] out a detailed plan to legalize marijuana . . . for 
adult use" and also created systems "that would license and 
regulate the businesses involved in the cultivation, testing, 
manufacture, distribution, and sale of marijuana and that would 
tax the retail sale of marijuana to consumers" "easily 
satisfie[d] the related subjects requirement of art. 48."  We 
rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the provision allowing 
nonprofit medical marijuana centers to become licensed as 
recreational marijuana distributors so that they could 
participate in the commercial market was unrelated to the over-
all legalization plan, because the provision was "simply one 
piece of the proposed integrated scheme."  Id. at 659.  "The 
fact that the initiative's proponents might have chosen instead 
to prohibit medical marijuana treatment centers from 
participation in the retail market," we observed, did not 
"affect the coherence of the proposal as a unified statement of 
13 
 
public policy that is a proper subject for a 'yes' or 'no' 
vote."  Id. 
Likewise, in Oberlies, 479 Mass. at 826-827, we considered 
an initiative petition that sought to impose limits on the 
number of patients assigned to each nurse in different hospital 
settings, and that also prescribed that implementation of these 
nurse-patient ratios could not result in a reduction in staffing 
levels of other health care workers at the facility.  We 
concluded that the workforce reduction restriction was "simply 
one piece of the proposed integrated scheme," id. at 832, 
quoting Hensley, 474 Mass. at 659, and operationally related to 
the rest of the proposal "[b]ecause it anticipate[d] and 
addresse[d] a potential consequence of the nurse-patient 
staffing ratios," namely that, "[i]f hospitals were economically 
burdened by hiring more registered nurses, they might attempt to 
compensate by reducing the numbers of other staff,"  Oberlies, 
supra at 832.7 
 
7 By contrast, we held in Oberlies that a second initiative 
petition did not meet art. 48's related subjects requirement 
because, in addition to provisions nearly identical to those in 
the first petition, it also included a section requiring that 
hospitals accepting funds from the Commonwealth file annual 
reports of their financial assets.  We concluded that this 
financial disclosure requirement had only a marginal 
relationship to the nurse-patient staffing ratios because these 
ratios were mandatory regardless of a hospital's financial 
condition.  Oberlies, 479 Mass. at 835-836. 
14 
 
More recently, in Weiner, we reviewed an initiative 
petition that would have created a new type of license for the 
sale of beer and wine by retail food stores for off-premises 
consumption, gradually increased and eventually eliminated the 
per-retailer limit on licenses for the retail sale of alcohol 
for off-premises consumption, required certain forms of 
identification as proof of age for all off-premises consumption 
sales, and provided additional resources for the enforcement of 
laws regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages.  See Weiner, 
484 Mass. at 689-690.  We agreed with the Attorney General that 
the petition satisfied art. 48 because its numerous provisions 
all related to the common purpose of lifting restrictions on the 
number and allocation of licenses for the retail sale of 
alcoholic beverages to be consumed off-premises.  See id. 
at 692.  Although the new age-verification provision and the 
increased funding for enforcement did not directly lift these 
restrictions, we concluded that they were operationally related 
to this common purpose because they "anticipate[d] and 
mitigate[d] the foreseeable consequences of lifting restrictions 
on licenses."  Id.  Thus, each provision was part of a "proposed 
scheme to lift restrictions on off-premises licenses for the 
retail sale of alcoholic beverages," and the entire petition 
"set[] forth a unified statement of policy and [was] 
15 
 
sufficiently coherent to permit a 'yes' or 'no' vote."  Id. 
at 693. 
 
c.  Application.  Unlike the initiative petitions at issue 
in Carney, 447 Mass. at 231-232; Gray, 474 Mass. at 638; and 
Anderson, 479 Mass. at 798-799, Initiative Petition 21-03 does 
not yoke together substantively distinct subjects unrelated to a 
consistent public policy.  Rather, as with the initiative 
petition in Weiner, 484 Mass. at 689-690, Initiative 
Petition 21-03 presents an integrated scheme whose various 
provisions serve the common purpose of loosening some of the 
current restrictions on the number and allocation of licenses 
for the retail sale of beer and wine for off-premises 
consumption, while taking steps to mitigate the potential 
negative effects of this expansion. 
Initiative Petition 21-03 creates a graduated transition by 
which the total number of licenses that any individual retailer 
of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption could hold 
would increase over a period of almost ten years.  The petition 
also would broaden, to some extent, the range of potential 
purchasers by adding out-of-State drivers' licenses to the types 
of identification on which sellers reasonably could rely, rather 
than turning away tourists from within the United States, while 
permitting tourists from other countries to use their passports 
as proof of being of the proper age to purchase alcohol.  These 
16 
 
provisions, as the title of Initiative Petition 21-03 indicates, 
are intended to modernize alcohol sales in the Commonwealth and 
to make purchases more convenient, so that purchasers could 
obtain alcohol at other types of stores, such as grocery stores, 
where purchasers already shop, without requiring multiple trips 
to different stores. 
The other provisions of Initiative Petition 21-03 arguably 
serve to moderate the effect of these changes.  The petition 
would limit the impact of the increase in the total aggregate 
number of licenses for off-premises consumption that could be 
held by a single retailer by increasing the restrictions on the 
number of licenses for the sale of "all alcoholic beverages" 
that the retailer could hold, such that the primary effect of 
the change would be to expand the availability of licenses for 
the sale of beer and wine. 
Initiative Petition No. 21-03 also would mitigate the risk 
of increased sales to underage drinkers posed by additional 
licenses for retail sales held by a single license holder, such 
as a local grocery chain, and the larger pool of purchasers by 
requiring all sales to be made through face-to-face 
transactions.  The petition also would encourage increased 
vigilance by retailers for whom alcoholic beverages are not 
their primary product by basing fines on the retailer's gross 
receipts for all retail sales, rather than on the gross receipts 
17 
 
for sales of alcoholic beverages only.  Thus, these provisions 
are operationally related to those that would increase the 
number of licenses for the purchase of alcohol that a single 
retailer could hold and would permit sellers to rely upon an 
out-of-State driver's license to verify a purchaser's age.  See 
Weiner, 484 Mass. at 692-693 (initiative petition's age-
verification and enforcement provisions were operationally 
related to provisions lifting restrictions on licenses for 
retail sale of alcohol). 
We therefore conclude that there is sufficient similarity 
and operational relatedness among the various provisions in 
Initiative Petition 21-03 to permit a reasonable voter to affirm 
or reject the entire petition as a unified statement of public 
policy. 
The plaintiffs argue that the different provisions of 
Initiative Petition 21-03 lack a uniform purpose and are not 
operationally related because the petition "impermissibly 
combines multiple contradictory positions:  both lifting and 
tightening restrictions on licenses" and "strengthening and 
loosening protections against age-related violations."  As 
discussed, however, these purportedly contradictory provisions 
actually are operationally related.  Moreover, an initiative 
petition need not focus solely on loosening (or tightening) 
restrictions in order to meet the related subjects requirement 
18 
 
of art. 48.  See Weiner, 484 Mass. at 694, quoting Mazzone v. 
Attorney Gen., 432 Mass. 515, 528-529 (2000) ("The provisions of 
an initiative petition need not be 'drafted with strict internal 
consistency'").  Adopting such a narrow interpretation of the 
related subjects requirement would unduly interfere with the 
freedom of proponents to develop petitions within the parameters 
of art. 48. 
The plaintiffs also argue that the risk mitigation 
provisions presented in Initiative Petition 21-03 are ill-suited 
to address concerns about sales of alcohol to underage minors, 
and that this disconnect renders them unrelated.  The plaintiffs 
contend, for example, that, unlike the uncapped class of 
licenses that would have been created by the initiative petition 
at issue in Weiner, the license expansion provisions in 
Initiative Petition 21-03 would yield only an incremental 
increase in the number of available licenses for retail sales 
for off-premises consumption, due to other statutory caps on the 
over-all number of licenses that a city or town could permit a 
single retailer to operate,8 and therefore does not give rise to 
the same enforcement concerns that were present in Weiner.  The 
 
8 General Laws c. 138, § 15, prohibits granting more than 
one license in a town or more than two licenses in a city to a 
single retailer.  General Laws c. 138, § 17, sets population-
based quotas on the number of licenses that may be issued in 
each city or town. 
19 
 
plaintiffs also maintain that the ban on automated checkouts 
would be ineffective in addressing the risk of sales of alcohol 
to underage purchasers because the new provision does not 
actually require sellers to verify a potential purchaser's age.  
In addition, the plaintiffs maintain that there is no adequate 
justification for the change in the formula used to calculate 
fines for violations of the licensing laws, which would have a 
heavier impact on sellers whose business is not focused 
primarily on sales of alcoholic beverages. 
This court's jurisprudence does not require a perfect fit 
between the risks created by a proposed measure and the 
provisions designed to mitigate those risks in order for those 
provisions to be viewed as operationally related.  In Weiner, 
484 Mass. at 694, for example, the plaintiffs maintained that 
the initiative petition at issue in that case would apply new 
age-verification requirements to all off-premises retailers and 
not just to what would have been the class of newly created food 
store licensees, and that provisions for increased funding and 
more investigators for enforcement purposes would similarly not 
have been limited to policing the new licensees.  We concluded, 
however, that "these administrative details" merely concerned 
"the scope of the measure and [did] not vitiate the relatedness 
of [the initiative petition] as a whole."  Id.  "So long as the 
provisions that have been included are sufficiently related," 
20 
 
"'[i]t is not for the courts to say that logically and 
consistently other matters might have been included or that 
particular subjects might have been dealt with differently.'"  
Id., quoting Massachusetts Teachers Ass'n v. Secretary of the 
Commonwealth, 384 Mass. 209, 220 (1981).9 
Finally, we disagree with the plaintiffs' contention that 
Initiative Petition 21-03 would place voters "in the untenable 
position of casting a single vote on two or more dissimilar 
subjects."  See Weiner, 484 Mass. at 691, quoting Abdow, 468 
Mass. at 499.  To the contrary, there is a logical relationship 
between the expansion of licensing provisions and the increased 
protection and enforcement measures to prevent underage 
consumption of alcohol.  See Weiner, supra at 692 (expansion of 
available licenses could result in increase in unlawful 
purchases of alcohol by individuals under the age of twenty-one, 
 
9 There are also persuasive counterarguments that can be 
made in response to each of the plaintiffs' assertions.  In 
suggesting that Initiative Petition 21-03 would create little 
increased risk of sales of alcohol to underage purchasers, the 
plaintiffs seemingly disregard the potential impact of allowing 
sellers to rely on out-of-State motor vehicle licenses to verify 
a buyer's age.  Requiring face-to-face sales transactions rather 
than automated checkouts arguably would help to detect and deter 
underage purchases.  Basing fines on receipts from all retail 
sales, and not just on sales of alcoholic beverages, potentially 
could provide a strong incentive for sellers who are not focused 
primarily on sales of alcoholic beverages, and who therefore may 
have less experience in preventing purchases by underage 
consumers, to be particularly vigilant. 
21 
 
which could be mitigated by age-verification requirements and 
greater enforcement efforts). 
Thus, the initiative petition presents voters with an 
integrated scheme that combines an increase in available 
licenses per retailer for the sale of alcohol for off-premises 
consumption, and an expansion in the types of identification 
that may be used to verify a purchaser's age, with other 
protective measures to prevent and deter underage purchases; it 
does not require a voter to cast a single vote on dissimilar 
subjects.  Compare Hensley, 474 Mass. at 659 ("A voter who 
favors the legalization of marijuana but not the participation 
in the retail market of entities registered as medical marijuana 
treatment centers is free to vote 'no' if he or she thinks that 
the dangers of mixing medical marijuana distribution with retail 
distribution overcome the benefits of the proposal, but the 
proposed act does not place anyone 'in the untenable position of 
casting a single vote on two or more dissimilar subjects'" 
[citation omitted]). 
3.  Conclusion.  The matter is remanded to the county court 
for entry of a judgment declaring that the Attorney General's 
certification of Initiative Petition 21-03 was in compliance 
with the requirements of art. 48. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered.