Title: Committee to Protect Access to Quality Dental Care v. Secretary of the Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-13313
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: July 28, 2022

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13313 
 
COMMITTEE TO PROTECT ACCESS TO QUALITY DENTAL CARE & another1  
vs.  SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
July 28, 2022. 
 
 
Initiative.  Dentist.  Insurance, Rate setting.  Constitutional 
Law, Initiative petition.  Secretary of the Commonwealth.  
Practice, Civil, Action in nature of certiorari, 
Preliminary injunction.  Libel and Slander. 
 
 
 
This case concerns the printing and distribution of the 
Information for Voters guide (guide) for the November 2022 
Statewide election by the Secretary of the Commonwealth 
(Secretary), specifically as it relates to ballot question 2, an 
initiative petition concerning the establishment of a medical 
loss ratio for dental insurance.  As part of the guide, the 
Secretary is required by art. 48, General Provisions, IV, of the 
Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, as amended by art. 
108 of the Amendments, and G. L. c. 54, §§ 53 and 54, to include 
150-word arguments for and against the initiative petition, 
which are drafted by supporters and opponents of the petition, 
respectively.  The plaintiffs, who oppose question 2, filed a 
complaint with a single justice of this court, bringing claims 
for (1) certiorari and equitable relief, and (2) libel.  The 
plaintiffs also moved for a temporary restraining order 
enjoining the Secretary from publishing the proponents' argument 
in the guide.  The single justice reserved and reported the case 
for determination by the full court.  Given the time constraints 
involved in the case, we issued an order on July 26, 2022, 
denying the plaintiffs' motion and granting the Secretary's 
 
1 Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc., doing business as 
Delta Dental of Massachusetts. 
2 
 
  
motion to dismiss the complaint.  This opinion explains the 
reasons for our order.2 
 
 
Background.  Article 48, General Provisions, IV, as amended 
by art. 108, requires the Secretary to, for each Statewide 
election, have printed and sent to registered voters in the 
Commonwealth "the full text of every measure to be submitted to 
the people" along with information about each measure, and 
"shall, in such manner as may be provided by law, cause to be 
prepared and sent . . . arguments for and against the measure."3  
General Laws c. 54, §§ 53-54, provide the manner in which the 
Secretary is to have published and distributed the arguments for 
and against each measure. 
 
Ballot question 2, to be submitted to the people in the 
November 2022 Statewide election, concerns the establishment of 
a medical loss ratio for dental insurance.  An earlier challenge 
to the Attorney General's certification of question 2 was 
unsuccessful.  See Clark v. Attorney Gen., 489 Mass. 840, 848 
(2022).  Consistent with G. L. c. 54, §§ 53-54, the Secretary 
invited proponents and opponents of question 2 to submit 
arguments for and against the initiative to be included in the 
guide.  The proponents submitted their argument in favor of 
question 2, which the plaintiffs now contend defames one 
specific dental benefits carrier, Delta Dental of Massachusetts, 
through false and misleading statements.  The Secretary intends 
 
2 We acknowledge the amicus letter submitted by the 
Committee on Dental Insurance Quality, the proponent of ballot 
question 2. 
 
3 Article 48, General Provisions, IV, as amended by art. 
108, provides in full: 
 
"The [S]ecretary of the [C]ommonwealth shall cause to be 
printed and sent to each person eligible to vote in the 
[C]ommonwealth or to each residence of one or more persons 
eligible to vote in the [C]ommonwealth the full text of 
every measure to be submitted to the people, together with 
a copy of the legislative committee's majority reports, if 
there be such, with the names of the majority and minority 
members thereon, a statement of the votes of the general 
court on the measure, and a fair, concise summary of the 
measure as such summary will appear on the ballot; and 
shall, in such manner as may be provided by law, cause to 
be prepared and sent other information and arguments for 
and against the measure." 
3 
 
  
to send the guide, including the proponents' argument, to the 
publisher for printing and distribution to the homes of 
approximately 4.7 million registered voters in the Commonwealth.  
The plaintiffs sought to require the Secretary to remove the 
offending language from the guide or otherwise prevent the 
Secretary from publishing or distributing the disputed portion 
of the proponents' argument.  The Secretary moved to dismiss the 
case and, alternatively, asked us to deny the plaintiffs' 
request for preliminary injunctive relief.  As stated, in our 
order, we denied the plaintiffs' request and granted the 
Secretary's motion. 
 
 
Discussion.  1.  Certiorari and equitable relief.  The 
plaintiffs first brought a claim for "certiorari and equitable 
relief."  As a preliminary matter, the certiorari statute, G. L. 
c. 249, § 4, is inapplicable, as no judicial or quasi judicial 
proceeding has occurred below.  See Hoffer v. Board of 
Registration in Med., 461 Mass. 451, 456 (2012), quoting Indeck 
v. Clients' Sec. Bd., 450 Mass. 379, 385 (2008) (for relief to 
be available pursuant to certiorari statute, there must be "[1] 
a judicial or quasi judicial proceeding[] [2] from which there 
is no other reasonably adequate remedy, and [3] a substantial 
injury or injustice arising from the proceeding under review"). 
 
 
Nor does G. L. c. 54, § 54, provide the plaintiffs with a 
basis for relief where that statute provides for no private 
right of action.  Compare G. L. c. 54, § 53 (providing private 
right of action for voters to seek amendment of title or of 
Secretary's or Attorney General's statements contained in guide 
in certain circumstances), with G. L. c. 54, § 54 (providing no 
similar right related to arguments, published in guide, drafted 
for and against measure by proponents and opponents of measure).  
"We will not 'read into the statute a provision which the 
Legislature did not see fit to put there.'"  Chin v. Merriot, 
470 Mass. 527, 537 (2015), quoting Commissioner of Correction v. 
Superior Court Dep't of the Trial Court for the County of 
Worcester, 446 Mass. 123, 126 (2006). 
 
 
The Secretary is required by both the State Constitution 
and by statute to solicit arguments for and against each ballot 
question "from the principal proponents and opponents of each 
. . . measure."  G. L. c. 54, § 54.  See art. 48, General 
Provisions, IV, as amended by art. 108; G. L. c. 54, § 53.  The 
only limitation placed on such arguments concerns their length; 
each argument must be no more than 150 words.  G. L. c. 54, 
§ 54.  Only "[i]f no argument is received by the [S]ecretary 
from the principal proponents or opponents of a measure" is the 
4 
 
  
Secretary instructed to "prepare such argument."  Id.  "All 
arguments filed with or prepared by the [S]ecretary . . . shall 
be open to public inspection."  Id.  Beyond limiting the length, 
the statute provides no standard for the content of the 
arguments in favor of and against a ballot measure.  This is in 
marked contrast to the portions of the guide drafted by the 
Secretary or the Attorney General.  The Secretary's summary of a 
ballot measure must be "fair" and "concise," art. 48, General 
Provisions, IV, as amended by art. 108; the one-sentence 
statement describing the effect of a "yes" or "no" vote, 
prepared jointly by the Secretary and Attorney General, must be 
"fair and neutral," G. L. c. 54, § 53. 
 
 
Additionally, the proponents' argument in favor of ballot 
question 2 unquestionably is political speech.  See Commonwealth 
v. Lucas, 472 Mass. 387, 395, 404 (2015) (statute criminalizing 
false statements about political candidates or questions 
submitted to voters was unconstitutional content-based 
regulation of political speech).  It would take the strongest of 
government interests to permit a prior restraint on such speech.  
See id. at 397 ("under our Declaration of Rights, the applicable 
standard for content-based restrictions on political speech is 
clearly strict scrutiny").  Such interests are not presented 
here. 
 
 
Both because G. L. c. 54, § 54, does not provide the 
plaintiffs with a private right of action, and because the 
statute does not appear to permit the Secretary to edit the 
argument in favor of ballot question 2 proffered by the 
initiative's proponents, count 1 of the plaintiffs' complaint 
must be dismissed. 
 
2.  Libel.  The plaintiffs also brought a claim against the 
Secretary, in his official capacity, for libel.4  The plaintiffs 
have failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted, 
because the statements published by the Secretary are 
privileged.  As discussed supra, the Secretary is required by 
 
4 As the Secretary notes, the Committee to Protect Access to 
Quality Dental Care may not assert a defamation claim on behalf 
of Delta Dental of Massachusetts.  See Eyal v. Helen 
Broadcasting Corp., 411 Mass. 426, 434 (1991), quoting Church of 
Scientology of Cal. v. Flynn, 578 F. Supp. 266, 268 (D. Mass. 
1984) (party "who is not himself libelled cannot recover").  We 
thus consider this claim only as it relates to Dental Service of 
Massachusetts, Inc., doing business as Delta Dental of 
Massachusetts. 
5 
 
  
law to publish in the guide partisan arguments in favor and 
against all ballot measures.  See art. 48, General Provisions, 
IV, as amended by art. 108; G. L. c. 54, §§ 53-54.  He cannot be 
held liable for defamation related to a publication required by 
law.  See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 592A (1977); Gohari v. 
Darvish, 363 Md. 42, 55 n.13 (2001) ("absolute privileges" in 
defamation suit, "which provide[] complete immunity," include 
"publications required by law" [citation omitted]).  For this 
reason, count 2 of the plaintiffs' complaint must be dismissed. 
 
3.  Emergency motion for temporary restraining order.  In 
addition to their complaint, the plaintiffs moved for a 
temporary restraining order enjoining the Secretary from 
publishing the proponents' argument as to ballot question 2.  
Because we have dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, this motion 
now is moot.5 
 
Conclusion.  For the reasons discussed herein, we ordered 
that the plaintiffs' emergency motion for a temporary 
restraining order be denied, and that the Secretary's motion to 
dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint be granted. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Thaddeus Alan Heuer, Andrew M. London, & Seth Reiner for 
the plaintiffs. 
 
Maura Healey, Attorney General, & Anne Sterman & Adam 
Horstine, Assistant Attorneys General, for the defendant. 
 
Joel Rosen for Committee on Dental Insurance Quality, 
amicus curiae. 
 
 
5 Additionally, where we have evaluated and rejected the 
plaintiffs' claims, the plaintiffs cannot make the requisite 
showing of "a likelihood of success on the merits" to obtain 
preliminary injunctive relief.  See Tri-Nel Mgt., Inc. v. Board 
of Health of Barnstable, 433 Mass. 217, 219 (2001).