The Massachusetts state auditor, a Democrat, is suing her own party’s leadership after uncovering nearly $12 million in alleged fraud in public assistance and being denied access to audit the Legislature despite a voter-approved mandate backed by 72% of voters.
Massachusetts State Auditor Diana DiZoglio has taken the unusual step of asking the state’s highest court to enforce a 2024 ballot measure that explicitly authorized her office to audit the Legislature. She says the vote was decisive and clear: “72% of the general public, the voting population in the state, went out and said that they want increased transparency and accountability via this office conducting an audit of the state legislature.” That voter mandate cuts through partisan spin and sets expectations for oversight.
Her office reported identifying “nearly $12 million in fraud” in fiscal year 2025 across several public assistance programs, a figure serious enough to demand scrutiny. For taxpayers, twelve million dollars is not trivial; it is money meant for services, not losses hidden by bureaucracy. DiZoglio argues that the auditor’s duty is to follow the money and ensure public funds are protected, regardless of which party holds power.
Earlier this year, DiZoglio notified legislative leaders of her intent to conduct a performance audit, but she says House and Senate leadership refused to hand over requested documents. According to her account, the attorney general declined to intervene, leaving the auditor to seek relief from the courts. The refusal by legislative leadership to cooperate raises the obvious question of what lawmakers might be keeping behind closed doors.
“72% of the general public, the voting population in the state, went out and said that they want increased transparency and accountability via this office conducting an audit of the state legislature.”
DiZoglio has framed the dispute plainly: “What are they hiding? If there’s nothing to hide, open up the doors. Let the sun shine in. Let’s do this audit.” Those words are pointed and direct, reflecting a view that public institutions should not shield themselves from scrutiny. From a Republican perspective, this is a straightforward fight for accountability and against the instinct of politicians to protect their turf.
“The Massachusetts State Auditor’s Office identified “nearly $12 million in fraud” in fiscal year 2025 alone across several public assistance programs.
State leaders defending their refusal argue that separation of powers and existing independent audits make a new audit unnecessary, and the attorney general has questioned whether the auditor even has authority to sue. Those legal and constitutional claims will have to withstand close scrutiny in the judicial process. But voters plainly wanted a mechanism to shine light on the Legislature’s finances, and a court ruling that ignores that mandate would undercut the ballot box.
DiZoglio emphasizes that the ballot measure passed with broad, cross-party support, and she has repeatedly pointed to that mandate when pressing her case. “This is something that 72% of voters came out to support, crossing party lines… You had progressive Democrats joining together with conservative Republicans… saying that they want this audit to get done.” When the public speaks so clearly, elected officials should respond, not stonewall.
“What are they hiding? If there’s nothing to hide, open up the doors. Let the sun shine in. Let’s do this audit.”
She also argues Massachusetts stands alone in letting the Legislature, the governor’s office, and the courts exempt themselves from public records rules, a posture that undermines public trust. The new audit authority would allow the auditor to access financial receipts and contracts paid for by taxpayers, tools necessary to detect waste, fraud, and misuse of funds. Republicans and fiscal conservatives generally back strong, independent oversight of public spending, and this dispute is squarely in that territory.
Resistance from Democratic leaders has been direct and public, with assertions that existing oversight suffices and legal obstacles bar the auditor’s path. DiZoglio disagrees and is asking the court to compel cooperation, arguing that the Constitution protects the people, not elected officials. “The Constitution is there to protect the people, not the politicians.” That line highlights the core of the argument: accountability to voters must come before institutional self-protection.
The question now before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is concrete and constitutional: if 72% of voters approved an audit, can lawmakers simply refuse to cooperate? How the court answers will set a precedent about whether voter-directed transparency measures can be blocked by the very officials those measures are meant to check. For taxpayers and for advocates of government accountability, the stakes are clear: transparency must be more than rhetoric.
Add comment