By Brooke Thomson
President & CEO

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court disqualified a tax-reduction ballot question two weeks ago, AIM responded by doing what we always do – rolled up our sleeves and got back work with elected officials to improve the economic competitiveness of Massachusetts.

By the afternoon of June 18, when the court rendered its decision, AIM staff members were meeting with representatives of the Healey-Driscoll Administration and the Legislature about how to address the commonwealth’s troubled Unemployment Insurance System.

AIM prefers to work behind the headlines, representing the views of thousands of member companies and building an economy that creates economic prosperity for everyone.

The goal is to build on existing strengths—world-class universities, biotechnology, healthcare, finance, defense, and technology—while addressing costs and infrastructure constraints that can push businesses and workers elsewhere. That means reforming the estate tax, moderating some of the highest energy costs in the nation and addressing the stifling cost of living that is promoting many of our best employees to take jobs in less expensive areas of the country.

Competitiveness means not only doing what’s best for business, but also what’s best for struggling families throughout the commonwealth.

Need proof? Between 2020 and mid-2026, Massachusetts experienced a net loss of over 24,000 private-sector jobs, ranking as one of the few U.S. states with an overall net decrease in private-sector employment since the pandemic. In contrast, competitor states like Texas, Florida, and North Carolina saw double-digit growth, adding hundreds of thousands to millions of jobs.

Massachusetts is facing one of the highest rates of domestic outmigration in the country and working-age adults between the ages of 25 and 44 are leaving at the highest rates. A Suffolk University/Boston Globe Survey published in June found that more than half of Massachusetts voters have considered leaving the commonwealth.

The Supreme Judicial Court decision on the proposal to reduce the state income tax from 5 percent to 4 percent was based upon the fact that a constitutionally required summary of the question prepared by the Attorney General’s office did not inform voters that the question, if passed, would also cut the state’s long-term capital gains tax rate.

The decision marked one more chaotic turn in an election season that could see voters confront a passel of complex issues at the ballot box, many with far-reaching consequences for the business community. The Court issued a subsequent ruling on June 23 that blocked a rent-control measure from the ballot.

AIM has long believed that governing through ballot questions is an inefficient and often ineffective way to make public policy and the surge of petitions in 2026 underscores that position.

The SJC income-tax ruling was certainly a disappointment to proponents who believe that a tax reduction would stimulate economic growth. We understand that sentiment and that’s why AIM is having substantive discussions with senior officials about reducing the tax burden on employers and incentivizing job growth.

We are also discussing housing costs, energy costs, unemployment-insurance costs and all the other factors that are promoting companies and individuals to vote with their feet.

Remember that the strongest actions are often unseen.