A hearing as part of a lawsuit filed by failed Republican Lt. Gov. candidate Anne Brensley over the voter-approved legislative audit will proceed Thursday afternoon in Middlesex Superior Court.
This hearing comes amid the ongoing legal battle over the probe of the state Legislature — nearly two years after 72% of Massachusetts voters approved it.
Brensley had won the party endorsement in a landslide victory at the Massachusetts Republican Convention in April, but failed to qualify for the ballot after falling victim to an apparent signature collection fraud scheme allegedly run by consultant Joe Bronske. She had filed the lawsuit over the legislative audit while she was still a candidate.
Brensley filed the lawsuit in October 2025, asking the court to compel Senate President Karen Spilka and House Speaker Ron Mariano to comply with the audit, approved in 2024 by over 2.2 million Massachusetts voters.
“The voters spoke clearly when they approved this measure. This case is about whether a law enacted by more than 2.2 million Massachusetts voters will be enforced. I believe the courts should uphold the will of the people and require compliance with the audit statute,” Brensley told the Herald in a written statement.
“I identified Massachusetts case law that I believe supports standing for candidates in circumstances such as these. I look forward to presenting those arguments and obtaining a ruling on the merits of the case,” she said.
Brensley is seeking a direct judicial order requiring compliance by Spilka and Mariano. The complaint requests that the court issue an order in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing legislative leadership to comply with the statute within 30 days.
Represented by the Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s Office, legislative leaders have moved to dismiss Brensley’s lawsuit, arguing that legal doctrines protecting government officials from certain forms of litigation apply in this case.
This comes as the House and Senate have passed their own respective versions of resolutions they say fairly complies with the audit.
The House passed its new transparency bill, which would only allow an audit of the limited records outlined by the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in its recent order, which includes the adoption of the official budget by both chambers, expenditures, joint legislative operations, and monetary settlement agreements all dating back to 2021.
It would also exempt the Legislature from the public records law, which it already is under current state law, but would enforce the governor’s office to comply with it. Currently, Massachusetts is the only state in the U.S. where the governor, Legislature and judiciary are all exempt from the public records law.
Also, the House bill would bar the courts from adjudicating any future disputes regarding access to public records, instead establishing a “dispute resolution process” between the auditor’s office and the Legislature to avoid “endless and costly litigation.”
The House proposal came just one week after the Senate voted 33-6 Thursday in favor of a resolution that allows the audit to be carried out, but with extensive limitations — which Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Worcester & Hampden) described as “a retreat dressed up as a magnanimous gesture, with an audit escape hatch.”
The hearing in Middlesex Superior Court begins Thursday at 3 p.m.
Original article
Comments