DiZoglio Gains High-Profile Backing as Parallel Lawsuit Seeks Legislative Audit

Massachusetts State Auditor Diana DiZoglio has escalated a legal fight with legislative leaders and the attorney general, asking the state’s highest court to enforce a voter-approved audit of the Legislature. The effort has drawn new allies: a retired Trial Court judge publicly defending the auditor and a Republican U. S. Senate candidate who has filed a separate lawsuit with a group of taxpayers to press the same demand.

DiZoglio takes the dispute to the Supreme Judicial Court

On Feb. 10, 2026 (ET), DiZoglio filed a petition with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court seeking relief to compel House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka to comply with Ballot Question 1, which voters approved in November 2024 by roughly 72 percent. The auditor is also asking the court to allow outside attorneys selected by her office to be appointed as Special Assistant Attorneys General so they can represent the Auditor’s Office in litigation related to the audit.

Attorney General Andrea Campbell has resisted that request, contending the auditor lacks unilateral authority to appoint a Special Assistant Attorney General without the attorney general’s involvement. The two officials have been at odds for months, with the auditor saying the attorney general’s unwillingness to sue or allow outside counsel has stalled the audit and created opportunities for records to be altered or destroyed. DiZoglio has characterized the delay as tantamount to obstruction and warned that time-sensitive evidence could be at risk as the dispute continues.

Deaton files parallel action under century-old statute

Republican U. S. Senate candidate John Deaton has filed a separate lawsuit alongside 30 Massachusetts taxpayers under a roughly century-old statute, M. G. L. c. 29, § 63, seeking to block what his team calls the unlawful expenditure of public funds by the Legislature and to force compliance with the mandated audit. Deaton’s filing asks the court to issue a writ of mandamus—a judicial order directing public officials to perform a duty they have neglected—to require the Legislature and relevant officials to permit the audit to proceed.

Deaton emphasized that his challenge does not rely on the attorney general’s approval, asserting the statute provides independent standing for taxpayers to sue. He framed the action as an effort to uphold voters’ will and preserve the integrity of the electoral mandate that authorized the audit.

The taxpayers’ group is represented by a private attorney. The filing mirrors key elements of DiZoglio’s petition by seeking court orders that would grant the Auditor’s Office the authority to examine legislative operations and records subject to the scope of the ballot measure.

Retired judge lends public backing and raises broader questions

Former Trial Court Judge Carol Erskine, now working in media and consulting, has publicly defended the auditor’s position and criticized recent statements from appellate and trial court leadership that courts are not subject to the audit. Erskine singled out the Trial Court chief justice and the Appeals Court chief justice for taking positions she characterized as at odds with the clear mandate approved by voters.

The dispute has touched off intense debate about separation of powers, the auditor’s statutory authority, and the proper role of the attorney general when state officers clash. Proponents of the audit argue that the ballot measure created an enforceable right for the Auditor’s Office to examine legislative finances and operations, while opponents caution about constitutional and institutional limits on audit authority.

As both the auditor’s petition and the taxpayers’ suit move through the courts, political and legal observers expect the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to confront fundamental questions about accountability, voter mandates, and the mechanisms available when an elected official resists an audit. For now, the litigation has put the issue squarely before the state’s highest judicial body, with the next steps to be determined on the court’s schedule.