Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

There is no such thing as a "minor" constitutional problem. Attorney General Andrea Campbell now appears to be acknowledging that her office knew the rent control ballot question had a problem tied to religion, but dismissed it as "minor" and certified it anyway. The SJC saw it differently. On...

MassFiscal's profile picture

Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance

16,657 subscribers

11,144 views • 26 days ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

🚨 On Thursday, the SJC ruled that the ballot question to reduce the income tax from 5% to 4% will not be on the November ballot, citing failure on the part of Attorney General Andrea Campbell to provide a fair and accurate summary of the question. “This is a disgraceful outcome for Massachusetts taxpayers and a direct result of the Attorney General’s failure to do her job properly,” said Paul D. Craney, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “More than 100,000 residents signed petitions to put tax relief before the voters. They followed the process, did the work, and earned a place on the ballot. Now, because the Attorney General’s office produced a summary the court found to be significantly misleading, voters are being denied the chance to decide for themselves whether Massachusetts should lower its income tax.” This decision doesn't make Massachusetts more affordable. #mapoli
1:12

🚨 On Thursday, the SJC ruled that the ballot question to reduce the income tax from 5% to 4% will not be on the November ballot, citing failure on the part of Attorney General Andrea Campbell to provide a fair and accurate summary of the question. “This is a disgraceful outcome for Massachusetts taxpayers and a direct result of the Attorney General’s failure to do her job properly,” said Paul D. Craney, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “More than 100,000 residents signed petitions to put tax relief before the voters. They followed the process, did the work, and earned a place on the ballot. Now, because the Attorney General’s office produced a summary the court found to be significantly misleading, voters are being denied the chance to decide for themselves whether Massachusetts should lower its income tax.” This decision doesn't make Massachusetts more affordable. #mapoli

Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance

67,280 views • 1 month ago

#NEW: “A GREAT RECORD.” Attorney General Andrea Campbell is defending her office after the #Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down a third ballot initiative Tuesday (rent control), again citing errors made by the AG’s office. Campbell tells me that out of the 44 ballot initiatives certified by her office, “we had six challenges and got three wrong. I think that’s a great record.” #Massachusetts #Campbell #politics #mapoli
0:39

#NEW: “A GREAT RECORD.” Attorney General Andrea Campbell is defending her office after the #Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down a third ballot initiative Tuesday (rent control), again citing errors made by the AG’s office. Campbell tells me that out of the 44 ballot initiatives certified by her office, “we had six challenges and got three wrong. I think that’s a great record.” #Massachusetts #Campbell #politics #mapoli

Tim Dunn

34,528 views • 27 days ago

.Governor Maura Healey Maura Healey calls it a “silly question” to ask if Attorney General Andrea Campbell should be replaced for her “misleading summary,” cited by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court, in its decision to kill a ballot initiative that would have lowered the #Massachusetts income tax from 5% to 4%. I asked Healey this as she stopped by the Juneteenth celebration in Roxbury today. #Massachusetts #incometax #Healey #Campbell #politics #mapoli
0:20

.Governor Maura Healey Maura Healey calls it a “silly question” to ask if Attorney General Andrea Campbell should be replaced for her “misleading summary,” cited by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court, in its decision to kill a ballot initiative that would have lowered the #Massachusetts income tax from 5% to 4%. I asked Healey this as she stopped by the Juneteenth celebration in Roxbury today. #Massachusetts #incometax #Healey #Campbell #politics #mapoli

Tim Dunn

31,334 views • 29 days ago

It appears that Thomas Lukaszuk is now regretting his formation of the question in HIS citizen led petition. Apparently he is now back peddling and only wants it to go to legislation. Not a vote. Regardless, it LOOKS like, no matter what, the question of “should Alberta remain in Canada” will be on the ballot in the referendum. Thanks Tommy! 😁
3:00

It appears that Thomas Lukaszuk is now regretting his formation of the question in HIS citizen led petition. Apparently he is now back peddling and only wants it to go to legislation. Not a vote. Regardless, it LOOKS like, no matter what, the question of “should Alberta remain in Canada” will be on the ballot in the referendum. Thanks Tommy! 😁

🇨🇦 Jack

41,752 views • 2 months ago

Two cases which were brought before the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe challenging Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB 3) have been struck off, NOT dismissed. CAB 3, which seeks, among other things, to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term of office and change the method of electing a president from direct election by citizens to election by Parliament, requires two referendums in law, but the ZANUPF faction sponsoring it wants to avoid a referendum. The Constitutional Court struck both cases off the roll this morning. It is important to understand that the cases were not dismissed on their merits. Rather, the Court held that the issues raised could not originate and be determined solely by the Constitutional Court and should first be ventilated in another forum, High Court. Professor Lovemore Maduku, who is arguing the cases, has indicated that they will now proceed to the High Court. Should the applicants fail to obtain the relief they seek there, the matters will inevitably return to the Constitutional Court on appeal. Many lawyers have described the Constitutional Court’s decision as an example of constitutional avoidance. In their view, the Court has declined to confront what has become a highly contentious constitutional question, preferring instead to defer consideration of the substantive issues. A central argument in the war veterans’ challenge, led by Professor Madhuku, is that Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 was discussed and approved by Cabinet, which included President Mnangagwa, the two Vice Presidents, and Cabinet ministers. Professor Madhuku argues that because President Mnangagwa stands to benefit directly from provisions extending his term of office, he should not have participated in deliberations on the amendments. According to the argument, the Constitution prohibits public officials from participating in decisions in which they have a direct personal interest. However, the Constitutional Court did not determine the merits of that argument, ruling instead that the matter should be heard elsewhere first. The legal battle is therefore far from over. It now moves to the High Court and, whatever the outcome there, is likely to find its way back to the Constitutional Court for a final determination.
2:15

Two cases which were brought before the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe challenging Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB 3) have been struck off, NOT dismissed. CAB 3, which seeks, among other things, to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term of office and change the method of electing a president from direct election by citizens to election by Parliament, requires two referendums in law, but the ZANUPF faction sponsoring it wants to avoid a referendum. The Constitutional Court struck both cases off the roll this morning. It is important to understand that the cases were not dismissed on their merits. Rather, the Court held that the issues raised could not originate and be determined solely by the Constitutional Court and should first be ventilated in another forum, High Court. Professor Lovemore Maduku, who is arguing the cases, has indicated that they will now proceed to the High Court. Should the applicants fail to obtain the relief they seek there, the matters will inevitably return to the Constitutional Court on appeal. Many lawyers have described the Constitutional Court’s decision as an example of constitutional avoidance. In their view, the Court has declined to confront what has become a highly contentious constitutional question, preferring instead to defer consideration of the substantive issues. A central argument in the war veterans’ challenge, led by Professor Madhuku, is that Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 was discussed and approved by Cabinet, which included President Mnangagwa, the two Vice Presidents, and Cabinet ministers. Professor Madhuku argues that because President Mnangagwa stands to benefit directly from provisions extending his term of office, he should not have participated in deliberations on the amendments. According to the argument, the Constitution prohibits public officials from participating in decisions in which they have a direct personal interest. However, the Constitutional Court did not determine the merits of that argument, ruling instead that the matter should be heard elsewhere first. The legal battle is therefore far from over. It now moves to the High Court and, whatever the outcome there, is likely to find its way back to the Constitutional Court for a final determination.

Hopewell Chin’ono

29,689 views • 1 month ago

The Office of the Utah Attorney General office concealed a criminal investigation into Governor Cox’s nomination petitions. A whistleblower leaked us the document they were hiding which Michael Clara specifically had asked for via GRAMA in the summer 2024 and to which the Office of the Utah Attorney General refused to acknowledge its existence. The Office of the Utah Attorney General’s deception and delay critically undermined Just Phil Lyman and my efforts to challenge the 2024 gubernatorial primary election. This is not acceptable. The intent of the Rule 60(b) motion is to now force the Office of the Utah Attorney General to answer for this delay and deception in court. Rule 60(b) motion scheduled for Tuesday, January 27, 2026.
4:27

The Office of the Utah Attorney General office concealed a criminal investigation into Governor Cox’s nomination petitions. A whistleblower leaked us the document they were hiding which Michael Clara specifically had asked for via GRAMA in the summer 2024 and to which the Office of the Utah Attorney General refused to acknowledge its existence. The Office of the Utah Attorney General’s deception and delay critically undermined Just Phil Lyman and my efforts to challenge the 2024 gubernatorial primary election. This is not acceptable. The intent of the Rule 60(b) motion is to now force the Office of the Utah Attorney General to answer for this delay and deception in court. Rule 60(b) motion scheduled for Tuesday, January 27, 2026.

Natalie Clawson

11,368 views • 5 months ago

DESANTIS: We are going to place a question on the ballot that is going to allow Floridians to be able to vote themselves relief from property tax. To truly own your home, you have to own it free and clear of the government. You shouldn't have to pay rent to the government.
3:45

DESANTIS: We are going to place a question on the ballot that is going to allow Floridians to be able to vote themselves relief from property tax. To truly own your home, you have to own it free and clear of the government. You shouldn't have to pay rent to the government.

Chris Nelson 🏝️🇺🇸

55,475 views • 10 months ago

🚨 MASSIVE DEVELOPING STORY IN VIRGINIA A judge just BLOCKED certification of the redistricting vote that would’ve created a 10–1 map. Not because of politics … Because the process itself may be unconstitutional. That means: ➤ The way it was pushed through is now under fire ➤ The ballot language is being challenged ➤ And the entire outcome is in question This isn’t a small technicality. If the rules weren’t followed, the results don’t stand. Period. You don’t get to bend the system, rush it through, and then hide behind “the will of the voters.” The courts are stepping in for a reason.
2:55

🚨 MASSIVE DEVELOPING STORY IN VIRGINIA A judge just BLOCKED certification of the redistricting vote that would’ve created a 10–1 map. Not because of politics … Because the process itself may be unconstitutional. That means: ➤ The way it was pushed through is now under fire ➤ The ballot language is being challenged ➤ And the entire outcome is in question This isn’t a small technicality. If the rules weren’t followed, the results don’t stand. Period. You don’t get to bend the system, rush it through, and then hide behind “the will of the voters.” The courts are stepping in for a reason.

Sherri Unfiltered™

29,848 views • 2 months ago

Gladys Boss: Government to government procurement is direct and anchored by the law. The Attorney General is not a person but an office which means that no matter who changes as Attorney General, we must be able to get a response #CitizenDayBreak
1:48

Gladys Boss: Government to government procurement is direct and anchored by the law. The Attorney General is not a person but an office which means that no matter who changes as Attorney General, we must be able to get a response #CitizenDayBreak

Citizen TV Kenya

14,572 views • 4 months ago

My question to the Prime Minister has started a national debate. This is not just a question of culture - it concerns national security. And the one place that issues of this kind should be debated is the House of Commons.
1:10

My question to the Prime Minister has started a national debate. This is not just a question of culture - it concerns national security. And the one place that issues of this kind should be debated is the House of Commons.

Sarah Pochin MP

163,465 views • 1 year ago

Cea Weaver says the quiet part out loud.... "We decided that fighting for rent control was a strategic and critical first step in the fight for full social housing... We decided that through a program like rent control, we are able to directly challenge the logic of unfettered profit in the real estate market. We are able to directly challenge housing as a wealth-building tool and, through regulation, strike a blow to the entire real estate industry at once. The beauty of rent stabilization and rent control is that it weakens the speculative value of the real estate asset. The value is no longer based on what the landlord is able to get, but rather it’s based on a state public board deciding how much rent is going up. And yes, that board is controlled by the real estate industry, and yes, there could be a better way to regulate it. But the idea is that we could weaken the entire industry at once through a strong rent control campaign, and that would strengthen our ability to fight for social housing.” Serious question: How is this constitutional?
1:06

Cea Weaver says the quiet part out loud.... "We decided that fighting for rent control was a strategic and critical first step in the fight for full social housing... We decided that through a program like rent control, we are able to directly challenge the logic of unfettered profit in the real estate market. We are able to directly challenge housing as a wealth-building tool and, through regulation, strike a blow to the entire real estate industry at once. The beauty of rent stabilization and rent control is that it weakens the speculative value of the real estate asset. The value is no longer based on what the landlord is able to get, but rather it’s based on a state public board deciding how much rent is going up. And yes, that board is controlled by the real estate industry, and yes, there could be a better way to regulate it. But the idea is that we could weaken the entire industry at once through a strong rent control campaign, and that would strengthen our ability to fight for social housing.” Serious question: How is this constitutional?

Michelle Tandler

612,819 views • 6 months ago

In the second matter before the Constitutional Court, filed by former opposition Member of Parliament Prince Dubeko Sibanda, the argument was that Parliament could not lawfully debate Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 because the bill itself is unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court ruled that the application was not yet ripe for determination, meaning that the parliamentary process must first run its course before the applicant can return to court to challenge the outcome. Once again, many lawyers have described the Court’s approach as an example of constitutional avoidance. In their view, the Court is declining to engage with the substantive constitutional questions now and is instead postponing their determination. However, the issues will not disappear. Even if the matter proceeds through the High Court first, it is almost inevitable that it will eventually return to the Constitutional Court on appeal for a final determination on the merits. In short, the Constitutional Court has not resolved the constitutional questions surrounding CAB 3; it has merely deferred them.
1:48

In the second matter before the Constitutional Court, filed by former opposition Member of Parliament Prince Dubeko Sibanda, the argument was that Parliament could not lawfully debate Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 because the bill itself is unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court ruled that the application was not yet ripe for determination, meaning that the parliamentary process must first run its course before the applicant can return to court to challenge the outcome. Once again, many lawyers have described the Court’s approach as an example of constitutional avoidance. In their view, the Court is declining to engage with the substantive constitutional questions now and is instead postponing their determination. However, the issues will not disappear. Even if the matter proceeds through the High Court first, it is almost inevitable that it will eventually return to the Constitutional Court on appeal for a final determination on the merits. In short, the Constitutional Court has not resolved the constitutional questions surrounding CAB 3; it has merely deferred them.

Hopewell Chin’ono

39,069 views • 1 month ago

BREAKING.🚨 New statement released on voting machines in Laurel County, Kentucky that reportedly would not let voters elect Donald Trump for President and instead were automatically selecting Kamala Harris. The voting machine "glitch" was *CONFIRMED.* "The Attorney General’s office has been to the vote center to check the device that has been shown across social media today. In full disclosure, after several minutes of attempting to recreate the scenario, it did occur. This was accomplished by hitting some area in between the boxes," Laurel County Clerk Tony Brown said in a statement. "After that we tried for several minutes to do it again and could not. Since this is going out across the USA and the world, I want to explain to everyone that this is a ballot marking device. You insert your blank ballot into it to vote your specific ballot for your precinct. It shows you who you have chosen for each race and notifies you if you didn’t make a selection in a race before it allows the voter to continue to the next page. When you come to the end of the ballot it shows you how you voted in every race and issue. It confirms with each voter that they are satisfied with their selections twice before printing the ballot." Isn't it odd how all of these voting machine "glitches" only go one way?
0:22

BREAKING.🚨 New statement released on voting machines in Laurel County, Kentucky that reportedly would not let voters elect Donald Trump for President and instead were automatically selecting Kamala Harris. The voting machine "glitch" was *CONFIRMED.* "The Attorney General’s office has been to the vote center to check the device that has been shown across social media today. In full disclosure, after several minutes of attempting to recreate the scenario, it did occur. This was accomplished by hitting some area in between the boxes," Laurel County Clerk Tony Brown said in a statement. "After that we tried for several minutes to do it again and could not. Since this is going out across the USA and the world, I want to explain to everyone that this is a ballot marking device. You insert your blank ballot into it to vote your specific ballot for your precinct. It shows you who you have chosen for each race and notifies you if you didn’t make a selection in a race before it allows the voter to continue to the next page. When you come to the end of the ballot it shows you how you voted in every race and issue. It confirms with each voter that they are satisfied with their selections twice before printing the ballot." Isn't it odd how all of these voting machine "glitches" only go one way?

Kyle Becker

3,292,047 views • 1 year ago

July 2025: Shabbos Kestenbaum reveals to a small gathering of Jewish students that he was part of a group "behind the scenes" who "helped write" Elise Stefanik's infamous "genocide" question. April 2026: Stefanik goes on Kestenbaum's show to promote her book "Poisoned Ivies," and neither mentions it to their audience. • Kestenbaum in 2025: "I'll tell you something behind the scenes, we were working with Congress on drafting those questions… [The 'genocide' question] was not meant to be a trick question, I know because we helped write the questions. The trick question was meant to be the follow-up question." • Kestenbaum now: "I did not know…that wasn't even meant to be a trick question!"
2:25

July 2025: Shabbos Kestenbaum reveals to a small gathering of Jewish students that he was part of a group "behind the scenes" who "helped write" Elise Stefanik's infamous "genocide" question. April 2026: Stefanik goes on Kestenbaum's show to promote her book "Poisoned Ivies," and neither mentions it to their audience. • Kestenbaum in 2025: "I'll tell you something behind the scenes, we were working with Congress on drafting those questions… [The 'genocide' question] was not meant to be a trick question, I know because we helped write the questions. The trick question was meant to be the follow-up question." • Kestenbaum now: "I did not know…that wasn't even meant to be a trick question!"

Chris Menahan 🇺🇸

22,482 views • 3 months ago

The recent Court of King’s Bench decision struck down the specific independence petition initiated by Mitch Sylvester, but it does not end the possibility of an Alberta independence referendum. The authority to place an independence question on the October 19, 2026 referendum ballot remains with Alberta’s cabinet under the Referendum Act. The legal foundation for a province’s right to vote on independence comes from the 1998 Supreme Court of Canada secession reference, not from the Clarity Act or any single citizen petition process. This decision is narrow, technical, and expected to be appealed. The broader democratic question remains unchanged: Albertans have the right to decide their future.
12:27

The recent Court of King’s Bench decision struck down the specific independence petition initiated by Mitch Sylvester, but it does not end the possibility of an Alberta independence referendum. The authority to place an independence question on the October 19, 2026 referendum ballot remains with Alberta’s cabinet under the Referendum Act. The legal foundation for a province’s right to vote on independence comes from the 1998 Supreme Court of Canada secession reference, not from the Clarity Act or any single citizen petition process. This decision is narrow, technical, and expected to be appealed. The broader democratic question remains unchanged: Albertans have the right to decide their future.

Rise Of Alberta

14,340 views • 2 months ago

If No Country for Old Men isn’t on your 10 Best Films of the 21st Century Ballot, I question the ballot. There’s a lot of room for disagreement between ballots, but not this. It cannot be argued that the Coen Brothers’ magnum opus is one of the best films of this century.
4:23

If No Country for Old Men isn’t on your 10 Best Films of the 21st Century Ballot, I question the ballot. There’s a lot of room for disagreement between ballots, but not this. It cannot be argued that the Coen Brothers’ magnum opus is one of the best films of this century.

Cinema Tweets

205,038 views • 1 year ago

For those that do not believe in a timed, gradual UFO disclosure process... time to change your paradigms. This is video 10 from a set of UAP videos released by the US Customs and Border Protection Federal Office. One - the object moves as if it was under intelligent control. And two - one can assume that it is doing surveillance work. But for what purpose? That's the biggest question. #ufoX #uapX #ovniX
3:00

For those that do not believe in a timed, gradual UFO disclosure process... time to change your paradigms. This is video 10 from a set of UAP videos released by the US Customs and Border Protection Federal Office. One - the object moves as if it was under intelligent control. And two - one can assume that it is doing surveillance work. But for what purpose? That's the biggest question. #ufoX #uapX #ovniX

UAP Juan

218,883 views • 2 years ago

Socialist Democrat Melat Kiros says America will stop exploiting the world if enough immigrants from the "global south" get into elected office "There's a certain reckoning that we are going to have to have with the global world order as it exists today and the way that it fundamentally will have to shift going forward. The responsibility that we have as Americans, the recognition that is going to be required of us -- of the exploitative and extractive nature that we play on the global scale and the global stage is only going to be challenged if we are getting represented by people who understand that on a fundamental level. And that means getting more immigrants into office. That means getting more people who have heritage in the global south into office."
0:47

Socialist Democrat Melat Kiros says America will stop exploiting the world if enough immigrants from the "global south" get into elected office "There's a certain reckoning that we are going to have to have with the global world order as it exists today and the way that it fundamentally will have to shift going forward. The responsibility that we have as Americans, the recognition that is going to be required of us -- of the exploitative and extractive nature that we play on the global scale and the global stage is only going to be challenged if we are getting represented by people who understand that on a fundamental level. And that means getting more immigrants into office. That means getting more people who have heritage in the global south into office."

Breitbart News

483,681 views • 9 hours ago

Former Attorney General Bill Barr on the Colorado Supreme Court removing Donald Trump from the ballot: "The core problem here is the denial of due process...It was a five day hearing. There was no jury...They were not able to subpoena witnesses...They relied on the January 6th committee hearings, which is mostly hearsay. There was no right to cross-examine...The process here was a procedural Frankenstein!"
1:14

Former Attorney General Bill Barr on the Colorado Supreme Court removing Donald Trump from the ballot: "The core problem here is the denial of due process...It was a five day hearing. There was no jury...They were not able to subpoena witnesses...They relied on the January 6th committee hearings, which is mostly hearsay. There was no right to cross-examine...The process here was a procedural Frankenstein!"

Townhall.com

1,187,244 views • 2 years ago

🚨 THIS is the EXACT question on today’s ballot in Virginia Democrats can NEVER win without DUPING voters, and this PROVES it: “Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?” How does this map “restore fairness”??! 90% of House seats have just been handed to a party that only receives 52% of the vote. RIGGED.
0:24

🚨 THIS is the EXACT question on today’s ballot in Virginia Democrats can NEVER win without DUPING voters, and this PROVES it: “Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?” How does this map “restore fairness”??! 90% of House seats have just been handed to a party that only receives 52% of the vote. RIGGED.

Nick Sortor

279,778 views • 2 months ago