SJC hears arguments for and against `millionaire tax'

The state’s highest court is considering whether a so-called millionaire tax can appear on this year’s statewide ballot or whether the Legislature — and not Massachusetts voters — should have final say in matters concerning public finance.

The proposed constitutional amendment, which would impose a 4 percent surtax on incomes over $1 million, is being attacked by a group of business owners who argue it violates the state’s charter.

Kevin Martin, an attorney representing the business group, argued before the Supreme Judicial

Court yesterday that allowing the ballot initiative would undermine the Legislature’s authority when it comes to spending and taxes.

He added that allowing the proposed amendment to appear on November’s ballot would “encourage every special interest group in the commonwealth to try to get some piece of public spending set aside for itself in the constitution, where the Legislature could not touch it.”

The money raised through the tax would go toward education and transportation programs, but those opposed to it say in court documents that the state charter forbids initiative petitions from being “used to embed spending earmarks in the Constitution.”

Martin also argued that the initiative improperly combines unrelated subjects by forcing money raised through the tax to be spent only on education and transportation.

But Kate Cook, an attorney for those supporting the proposal, argued the tax would help boost “chronically underfunded” services, and that it didn’t run afoul of the state constitution.

State Attorney General Maura Healey certified the 2018 question and defended the initiative.

“We vigorously defended our certification decision today before the Supreme Judicial Court, and we appreciate the Court’s careful consideration of the issues,” Healey spokeswoman Emily Snyder said. “We are hopeful that the voters will have the opportunity to vote on this ballot question in November.”