In a bold legal maneuver that deepens the political drama surrounding her efforts to scrutinize the Massachusetts Legislature, State Auditor Diana DiZoglio has petitioned the state's highest court to appoint a former political adversary of the Attorney General as her legal representative. The move introduces a new layer of intrigue to an already contentious battle over legislative transparency and the limits of governmental oversight, potentially setting a precedent for how inter-branch conflicts are resolved in the commonwealth.
DiZoglio's formal request to the Supreme Judicial Court seeks authorization for Shannon Liss-Riordan, a prominent labor attorney who previously challenged Attorney General Andrea Campbell in a heated Democratic primary contest, to serve as "special assistant attorney general" for her office. This unusual arrangement would position Liss-Riordan in direct opposition to Campbell, who has steadfastly declined to represent the auditor in her push to compel lawmakers to submit to a comprehensive audit of their operations and finances.
The Core Constitutional Dispute
At the heart of the conflict lies a voter-approved measure from 2024 that explicitly granted DiZoglio's office the authority to audit the Massachusetts Legislature. Despite overwhelming public support for the initiative, with voters clearly expressing their desire for greater transparency in state government, lawmakers have steadfastly resisted compliance. Legislative leaders argue that such an examination would breach constitutional separation of powers and undermine the independence of the legislative branch, creating a dangerous precedent for executive overreach.
House leaders have taken the additional step of retaining outside legal counsel to bolster their position and prepare for potential litigation. This defensive posture has created a standoff between the legislative and audit branches of government, with each side claiming constitutional prerogatives that cannot be compromised.
The Attorney General's office traditionally represents state agencies and officials in legal proceedings, serving as the commonwealth's chief legal advocate and protector of state interests. However, Campbell has refused to take up DiZoglio's cause, creating an unprecedented situation where a state constitutional officer cannot obtain legal representation from the very office designed to provide it. This refusal has forced the auditor to seek alternative representation through the courts, culminating in her current petition to the Supreme Judicial Court for special counsel.
A Political Rivalry Resurfaces in Legal Arena
The selection of Liss-Riordan adds a compelling political dimension to the already complex legal fight. In 2022, Liss-Riordan mounted a vigorous campaign against Campbell in the Democratic primary for attorney general, ultimately losing by a significant 16-point margin. The contest was notable for its intensity, the substantial resources both candidates deployed, and the sharp exchanges over their respective qualifications and visions for the office.
Since that electoral contest, Liss-Riordan has contributed $3,500 to DiZoglio's campaign, establishing a financial and political connection between the two women that predates the current legal dispute. DiZoglio acknowledged knowing Liss-Riordan through Democratic political circles but clarified that she did not actively participate in the 2022 attorney general campaign or endorse either candidate publicly.
During a Tuesday appearance on GBH's "Boston Public Radio," the auditor didn't mince words about Campbell's refusal to represent her office, employing unusually strong language to describe the situation and its implications for state governance.
"The AG is acting capriciously and scandalously by refusing to allow us to have our own attorney represent us," DiZoglio stated emphatically. "Send me your best wishes. We are living on a prayer right now."
Liss-Riordan has pledged to represent the auditor's office without charge if the court approves her appointment, offering her services pro bono for what she frames as a matter of public interest and democratic principle. In a statement released Tuesday, she positioned the legal battle as a defense of transparency and voter intent.
"This request to the SJC is the next step in seeking to carry out the will of the voters," Liss-Riordan said. "It is unfortunate that it has come to this, but if the Court allows for the appointment of a Special Assistant Attorney General to represent the Auditor's Office, I will be proud to take up that fight for transparency."
Shifting Financial Arrangements and Political Optics
The auditor's decision to pursue Liss-Riordan's appointment comes after she strategically distanced herself from previous financial backing provided by Republican megadonor and gubernatorial hopeful Mike Minogue. Minogue, through a boutique law firm he funds, had covered DiZoglio's legal expenses in the audit fight, providing crucial resources for the ongoing battle against legislative resistance.
However, DiZoglio now characterizes that arrangement as a political distraction from the substantive issues at stake. The association with a prominent Republican donor had created an unusual bipartisan alliance that complicated the narrative for a Democratic auditor and provided ammunition for critics who questioned her motivations.
"Every time we talk about this lawsuit, the coverage seems to be centered around the fact that there is someone else paying for the attorney," DiZoglio explained to reporters Tuesday. "It's just becoming more of a distraction from the underlying issue. The law is being broken, and it needs to be enforced."
By shifting to Liss-Riordan's pro bono offer, DiZoglio eliminates the funding controversy and aligns herself with a well-known Democratic attorney who shares her commitment to transparency and government accountability. Minogue's spokesperson, Erin Maguire, responded graciously to DiZoglio's decision, stating that the donor was "happy to step up and help get the lawsuit off the ground" and remains pleased to see the audit fight progress to its next phase.
"We are happy to see [the] audit fight move to the next phase," Maguire said, indicating no hard feelings about the auditor's strategic pivot and emphasizing that the goal was always to support transparency efforts.
Legal and Constitutional Questions at Stake
The dispute raises fundamental questions about the balance of power between branches of government and the role of the Attorney General in representing state officials when political or philosophical differences emerge. DiZoglio's office argues that legislative resistance to the audit violates the clear mandate voters established in 2024, representing a direct defiance of the democratic process and the expressed will of the electorate.
Lawmakers, conversely, contend that external review would infringe upon the Legislature's constitutional autonomy and could set a dangerous precedent for executive branch interference with legislative functions. They argue that the separation of powers doctrine protects their internal operations from outside scrutiny, even from other constitutional officers elected by the same voters.
The Supreme Judicial Court's decision on whether to appoint Liss-Riordan could set a significant precedent for how similar inter-branch conflicts are resolved in the future, not only in Massachusetts but potentially in other states facing comparable issues. It also tests the boundaries of the Attorney General's discretion in choosing which state matters to pursue and whether that discretion can be challenged when it leaves a constitutional officer without representation.
Legal scholars note that the case presents novel questions about the intersection of voter initiatives, constitutional authority, and the duties of elected officials to implement the public will. The outcome could influence how other states handle similar transparency measures and inter-branch disputes, making it a case of national interest for government accountability advocates.
Political Implications for Key Players
For Campbell, the situation presents a delicate political challenge that requires balancing her institutional role with political considerations and her public image as a champion of progressive values. Her refusal to represent DiZoglio aligns her, perhaps unintentionally, with legislative leaders resisting transparency measures. This positioning could prove problematic for a politician who campaigned on principles of open government and accountability, potentially creating a disconnect between her rhetoric and actions.
Meanwhile, Liss-Riordan's potential appointment would place her in direct opposition to the office she once sought to lead, creating an unusual proxy battle between former rivals that extends beyond personal politics into questions of institutional duty. The arrangement would give her a platform to demonstrate her legal skills and commitment to transparency, potentially rehabilitating her political profile after the 2022 defeat and positioning her for future opportunities.
DiZoglio, who announced her reelection campaign this fall, has positioned herself as a champion of government accountability regardless of political cost or party loyalty. The audit fight has become a defining feature of her tenure, and her willingness to challenge both the Legislature and the Attorney General demonstrates her commitment to that principle, even at the cost of political friction within her own party and potential alienation of powerful allies.
Looking Ahead: A Defining Moment for State Government
As the Supreme Judicial Court considers DiZoglio's petition, all parties await a ruling that could reshape the landscape of state government oversight and inter-branch relations for years to come. The auditor's gamble on Liss-Riordan reflects both the urgency she attaches to the audit and the political calculations inherent in high-stakes legal battles where the principles of transparency and constitutional authority collide.
The case underscores a persistent tension in democratic governance: the challenge of implementing voter-approved reforms when institutional powers resist change and assert their own interpretation of constitutional limits. Whether through Liss-Riordan's potential appointment or other means, DiZoglio appears determined to fulfill what she views as her constitutional duty to hold the Legislature accountable to the people who elected both her and the lawmakers.
The outcome will likely influence not only the immediate question of legislative audits but also broader issues of transparency, constitutional authority, and the willingness of elected officials to challenge institutional norms in pursuit of their mandates. For Massachusetts residents, the case represents a critical test of whether voter-approved measures can overcome institutional resistance and whether government transparency remains an achievable ideal or merely an aspirational principle that yields to political expediency.