Gov’s party-of-one rule
Pols aim to limit Baker’s sweeping emergency authority
Legislators frustrated by Gov. Charlie Baker’s “topdown, authoritative” response to the coronavirus pandemic are taking aim at his sweeping executive authority through bills seeking to limit his powers under a prolonged state of emergency.
“This is not a dictatorship,” said state Sen. Diana DiZoglio, D-Methuen, who’s behind one of the bills. “The governor has taken a top-down, authoritative approach to the COVID-19 response and as a result many residents have not been heard. It’s too much for any one person and one administration to handle when dealing with emergencies of this scale and length.”
The governor’s emergency powers, established through the 1950 Civil Defense Act and upheld by the courts, are expansive. And Baker has wielded them extensively since declaring a state of emergency on March 10, 2020 — issuing 65 executive orders that have dictated major aspects of public and private life from mask mandates, to gathering limits, to business and school closures and reopenings.
But lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who saw the need for quick executive action during the worst of the pandemic’s surges are now looking to reassert their authority by placing limits on Baker as the state of emergency stretches into a second year.
“Our jobs should not be to simply write letters to the governor hoping that he’ll take action,” DiZoglio said. “We have a responsibility to legislate — it’s in our titles — so it’s incumbent upon us to legislate and take some of that power back.”
DiZoglio’s bill seeks to impose a 60-day limit on emergency declarations, which would force the governor to come before both houses of the Legislature for periodic extensions. Current law puts no time limit on such declarations.
State Rep. Nick Boldyga, R-Southwick, filed legislation proposing a 30-day sunset on emergency orders and mandates, and seeking to give state courts jurisdiction to hear cases challenging state and local emergency orders.
“The bill that I filed doesn’t strip the governor of his powers in any way,” Boldyga said. “But we have had no input on these executive orders … and it’s time to restore those checks and balances in government.”
Boldyga’s bill was modeled after proposed legislation from the Pacific Legal Foundation, a Californiabased libertarian nonprofit law firm that’s worked with lawmakers across the country on bills seeking to curtail governors’ executive powers.
“We recognize that emergencies pop up and there’s a need for the government to act nimbly and quickly to prevent the loss of life and property, but that can’t last forever,” Daniel Dew, PLF’s legal policy director, said.
Lawmakers have filed more than 200 bills and resolutions in at least 40 states this year seeking to restrict or provide more oversight of their governors’ unilateral powers amid the pandemic and other emergencies, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Other bills filed in Massachusetts include one from Rep. Michael Day, D-Stoneham, aiming to create more communication between the executive and legislative branches. And one from state Rep. Daniel Carey, D-Easthampton, would impose a 90-day limit on any emergency declaration, similar to DiZoglio’s.
“I’m not trying to push this through and end the state of emergency today,” Carey said. “I want to make sure we’re ready for the next one. And if we’re going to be using this authority and make this last, the Legislature should be more involved.”