Regional chamber of commerce brought action against city alleging that voter-initiated legislation establishing emergency minimum wage in city violated direct initiative provisions of State Constitution and city’s direct initiative ordinance.
The Superior Court granted summary judgment against chamber. Chamber appealed and intervenors cross-appealed.
The Supreme Judicial Court held that:
- Emergency minimum wage provision did not violate direct initiative power under State Constitution;
- Provision did not violate direct initiative ordinance; and
- Effective date of provision was date that new minimum wage rate came into effect.
Voter-initiated legislation establishing emergency minimum wage in city related to municipal affairs, and therefore it did not violate direct initiative provisions of State Constitution; local minimum wage was among the issues encompassed by municipal legislative authority.
Voter-initiated legislation establishing emergency minimum wage in city related to municipal affairs, and therefore it did not violate city’s direct initiative ordinance; local minimum wage was among the issues encompassed by municipal legislative authority, and direct initiative ordinance was a predominantly procedural provision that merely facilitated the substantive law and that could evolve separate and apart from the procedure.
Effective date of voter-initiated legislation establishing emergency minimum wage in city was date that new minimum wage rate came into effect, where legislation did not explicitly state an effective date for emergency minimum wage provision and emergency provision cross-referenced another section to establish the effective minimum wage rate for purposes of computing emergency minimum wage.