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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13609

SJC-13610

JOHN SCHNEIDER & others1 vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL & another.2

MAX PAGE & others3 vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL & another.4

Suffolk. May 22, 2024. - June 27, 2024.

Present: Budd, C.J., Gaziano, Kafker, Wendlandt, Georges, 

& Wolohojian, JJ.

Initiative. Constitutional Law, Initiative petition. Attorney 

General. Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System 

Examination.

Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for 

the county of Suffolk on May 16, 2024.

The case was reported by Wolohojian, J.

1 Sixty-eight registered voters of the Commonwealth. We 

refer to Schneider and the additional sixty-eight voters in case 

no. SJC-13609 collectively as the Schneider plaintiffs.

2 Secretary of the Commonwealth. 

3 Sixty-five registered voters of the Commonwealth. We 

refer to Page and the additional sixty-five voters in case no. 

SJC-13610 collectively as the Page plaintiffs.

4 Secretary of the Commonwealth. 
2

Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for 

the county of Suffolk on May 9, 2024.

The case was reported by Wolohojian, J.

The cases were submitted on briefs.

Henry C. Dinger for John Scneider & others.

Sarah K. Grossnickle, of Maine, & Thomas O. Bean for Max 

Page & others.

Andrea Joy Campbell, Attorney General, Anne Sterman & 

Phoebe Fischer-Groban, Assistant Attorneys General, for the 

defendants.

Frank J. Bailey, John C. La Liberte, & Nicholas M. 

O'Donnell, for Pioneer Public Interest Law Center & others, 

amici curiae.

WOLOHOJIAN, J. The plaintiffs in these paired cases 

challenge, pursuant to G. L. c. 54, § 53, the title and onesentence "yes/no" statements prepared by the Attorney General 

and the Secretary of the Commonwealth (Secretary) with respect 

to Initiative Petition 23-36, "A Law Requiring that Districts 

Certify that Students Have Mastered the Skills, Competencies and 

Knowledge of the State Standards as a Replacement for the MCAS 

Graduation Requirement" (petition). Although they give 

different reasons, both sets of plaintiffs argue that the title 

and the one-sentence statements are "false, misleading or 

inconsistent with the requirements of" § 53, and ask that we 
3

amend them. We conclude that the title and one-sentence 

statements satisfy § 53, and accordingly deny the relief sought.5 

Background.6 Under our existing law, students attending 

public schools and students educated with State funds must 

satisfy a "competency determination" as a condition for high 

school graduation. See G. L. c. 69, § 1D (i); Student No. 9 v. 

Board of Educ., 440 Mass. 752, 758 (2004). Competency, in turn,

is measured by a student's performance on what are known as the 

Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests. See 

G. L. c. 69, §§ 1D (i), 1I; 603 Code Mass. Regs. § 30.03 (2022). 

5 We acknowledge the amicus brief submitted by Pioneer 

Interest Law Center, Michael Contompasis, and James A. 

Caradonio.

6 The Page plaintiffs and Schneider plaintiffs filed their 

complaints in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County on 

May 9 and 16, 2024, respectively. A single justice paired, 

reserved, and reported the two cases for consideration by the 

full court.

Both complaints were timely filed within twenty days of 

publication of the title and one-sentence statements, which did 

not occur until April 26, 2024. See G. L. c. 54, § 53. 

"[B]ecause we make every effort to resolve ballot cases before 

the voter information guide and ballots are sent for printing in 

early July," Hensley v. Attorney Gen., 474 Mass. 651, 671-672 

(2016), we find ourselves once again put in the undesirable 

position of deciding a § 53 challenge at the "proverbial 

eleventh hour." See id. We reiterate our request that the 

Attorney General and Secretary "consider preparing and 

publishing the title and one-sentence statements under § 53 no 

later than twenty days in advance of February 1 of the election 

year" so that "challenges brought under the statute [can]

proceed in the normal course, at a more orderly pace, and not, 

as here, at the proverbial eleventh hour." Id.
4

The one-paragraph petition proposes redefining competency 

by ending MCAS tests as the relevant measure and, instead,

requiring a student to

"satisfactorily complet[e] coursework that has been 

certified by the student's district as showing mastery of 

the skills, competencies, and knowledge contained in the 

state academic standards and curriculum frameworks in the 

areas measured by the MCAS high school tests . . . , and in 

any additional areas determined by the board."

Pursuant to art. 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts 

Constitution, the Attorney General certified the petition and 

prepared the following summary of its provisions:

"This proposed law would eliminate the requirement that a 

student pass the [MCAS] tests (or other statewide or 

district-wide assessments) in mathematics, science and 

technology, and English in order to receive a high school 

diploma. Instead, in order for a student to receive a high 

school diploma, the proposed law would require the student 

to complete coursework certified by the student's district 

as demonstrating mastery of the competencies contained in 

the state academic standards in mathematics, science and 

technology, and English, as well as any additional areas 

determined by the Board of Elementary and Secondary 

Education."

No one (whether the plaintiffs here or any other set of voters) 

has challenged either the Attorney General's certification or 

her summary.

Thereafter, the Attorney General and Secretary published in 

the Massachusetts Register the ballot question title and onesentence statements that are at issue in this case. They state

as follows: 
5

Title: "Elimination of MCAS as High School Graduation 

Requirement." 

"Yes" one-sentence statement: "A YES VOTE would eliminate 

the requirement that students pass the [MCAS] in order to 

graduate high school but still require students to complete 

coursework that meets state standards."

"No" one-sentence statement: "A NO VOTE would make no 

change in the law relative to the requirement that a 

student pass the MCAS in order to graduate high school."

The one-sentence statements are slated to appear on the November 

Statewide election ballot together with the petition and the 

Attorney General's summary. See G. L. c. 54, § 42A. They will 

also appear, together with the title, petition, summary, and 

other information, in the Information for Voters guide mailed to 

voters. See G. L. c. 54, §§ 53, 54. 

Discussion. General Laws c. 54, § 53, in relevant part, 

instructs the Attorney General and Secretary to prepare jointly 

"a ballot question title" and "fair and neutral [one]-sentence 

statements describing the effect of a yes or no vote." Section 

53 allows any fifty voters to file a petition seeking to have 

the title or statements be amended. G. L. c. 54, § 53. 

However, such relief will be granted "only if it is clear" that 

the title or one-sentence statements are "false," "misleading," 

or otherwise "inconsistent with the requirements of [§ 53]". 

Id. "[W]e afford deference to 'the Attorney General's and the 

Secretary['s] reasonable judgments in deciding what to include 

in the [title and the] one-sentence statements." Anderson v. 
6

Attorney Gen., 490 Mass. 26, 34 (2022), quoting Dunn v. Attorney 

Gen., 474 Mass. 675, 688 n.12 (2016). "Such deference is 

entirely appropriate, given the challenge of creating a title 

that fairly characterizes a sometimes complex petition and of 

drafting a single sentence that fairly and neutrally describes 

the consequence of a 'yes' or 'no' vote regarding such a 

petition." Hensley v. Attorney Gen., 474 Mass. 651, 668 (2016). 

The crux of the arguments advanced by both sets of 

plaintiffs is that the title and one-sentence statements are 

misleading because they are incomplete. The Page plaintiffs 

argue that the title and one-sentence "yes" statement are 

misleadingly incomplete because they mention only that the 

petition will eliminate MCAS as a graduation requirement, 

without also stating that MCAS would be replaced with something 

else. They accordingly ask that we make the amendments set out 

in the margin.7 The Schneider plaintiffs assert that the title 

and one-sentence statements are misleadingly incomplete because, 

by referencing only the elimination of MCAS as a graduation 

7 The Page plaintiffs ask us to substitute the term 

"elimination" with the term "replacement" in the title and to 

amend the one-sentence "yes" statement to be as follows: "A YES 

VOTE would require that for a student to graduate high school, 

the school district must determine that the student 

satisfactorily completed coursework certified by the district as 

demonstrating mastery of state curriculum standards instead of 

passing the MCAS."

 
7

requirement, they do not disclose that the petition would 

prohibit the use of any uniform Statewide assessment as a 

graduation requirement. The Schneider plaintiffs' proposed 

amendments also appear in the margin.8

We assess these arguments keeping in mind that the title 

and the one-sentence statements generally "'cannot, and should

not, attempt to describe all the elements of a proposed measure' 

because 'that would undermine their usefulness as a shorthand 

reference for voters'" (alteration omitted). Anderson, 490 

Mass. at 34, quoting Dunn, 474 Mass. at 688 n.12. Instead, they 

are designed to be concise, and "conciseness and completeness 

are often incompatible." Bowe v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 

320 Mass. 230, 243 (1946). In determining whether a title or 

one-sentence statement is misleadingly incomplete, we consider 

it "in the context of the other information that will be 

furnished to voters in the information guide prepared by the 

Secretary and on the ballot." Hensley, 474 Mass. at 669. An 

incomplete title or one-sentence statement is clearly misleading

only where, in the context of other information provided to 

voters, its incompleteness results in a significant 

8 The Schneider plaintiffs ask us to substitute the term 

"MCAS" with "any uniform statewide assessment" in both the title 

and one-sentence statements. 
8

mischaracterization of the petition's substance. See, e.g., id.

at 668-669.

Here, the short petition addresses a single regulatory 

issue (high school graduation requirements), and the title and 

one-sentence statements accurately characterize what the 

petition proposes to do (eliminate MCAS tests as a graduation 

requirement). It is true, as the plaintiffs point out, that the 

petition would also (i) replace the MCAS requirement with a new 

assessment scheme and (ii) prohibit any future Statewide 

assessment from being used as a graduation requirement. But 

these are not distinct regulatory features of the petition. The 

title and one-sentence statements do not need to describe every

feature of the petition. See Hensley, 474 Mass. at 669 n.28 

(even though petition would also legalize, regulate, and tax 

"hashish" and "food products with tetrahydrocannabinol [THC]," 

title did not need to reference these products). Here, we defer 

to the Attorney General and Secretary's reasonable decision that 

the information did not need to be included. See Anderson, 490 

Mass. at 34. And we see no risk that the missing information

would mislead voters given that the short, one-paragraph 

petition, and the Attorney General's equally short and concise 

one-paragraph summary, explicitly and clearly explain the 

details of the petition and provide context for the title and 

one-sentence statements.
9

The features of the petition omitted from the title and

one-sentence statements here are not analogous to the 

information missing from the title that gave us concern in 

Hensley. See Hensley, 474 Mass. at 668-669. There, the 

petition contained a long and complicated scheme that had three 

distinct regulatory features: the legalization of marijuana, 

its regulation, and its taxation. Id. at 669. The title, 

however, referred only to "Marijuana Legalization," and we

accordingly concluded that it was clearly misleading because it 

did not include reference to the two other major features of the 

petition. Id. At the same time, Hensley teaches that not all 

omissions from a title or one-sentence statement are clearly 

misleading. For example, we concluded that the title did not 

need to include the term "adult use," reasoning that an average 

voter would reasonably understand that the legalization of 

marijuana would not extend to people under the age of twentyone.9 See id. at 669 n.28. Here, as we have already noted, what 

are omitted from the title and one-sentence statements are not 

distinct regulatory features of the petition.

We now turn to two additional arguments forwarded by the 

Page plaintiffs. First, the Page plaintiffs argue that the one9 We used "average voter" in Hensley as shorthand for the 

objective inquiry of whether voters would be clearly misled by 

an omission in the title. 
10

sentence "yes" statement is misleading because it does not 

explicitly state that the new proposed assessments standard 

would be a graduation requirement. Under the Page plaintiffs' 

reading, the "yes" statement categorizes the assessments 

standard as a general academic requirement rather than as a 

graduation requirement. We are not persuaded. The petition 

itself only addresses graduation requirements, and thus the onesentence "yes" statement is reasonably understood as referencing 

graduation requirements. 

Second, the Page plaintiffs argue that the word "still" in 

the one-sentence "yes" statement incorrectly implies that

students are required under current law to complete coursework 

meeting State standards to graduate high school, and that the 

statement accordingly fails to explain that such coursework 

would be a replacement graduation requirement under the proposed 

law. This argument depends on accepting the Page plaintiffs' 

contention that "still" is used to mean "continually." But a 

natural reading of the one-sentence statement makes clear that 

the term "still" is used to mean "nevertheless." MerriamWebster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com

/dictionary/still [https://perma.cc/8T9P-83E9]. Thus, contrary 

to the Page plaintiffs' contention, the "yes" statement explains 

that the petition would replace the MCAS graduation requirement. 
11

Conclusion. The matter is remanded to the county court for 

entry of a judgment declaring that the Attorney General and 

Secretary's title and one-sentence statements describing the 

effects of a "yes" vote and a "no" vote are in compliance with 

the requirements of G. L. c. 54, § 53. 

So ordered.