Somerville Legislators Sued for Violating Constitutional Duty

[dominic-santos.livejournal.com]

Representatives Denise Provost, Carl Sciortino, and Tim Toomey, and Senators Jarrett Barrios and Pat Jehlen were sued today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts "for violating the constitutional rights of Massachusetts citizens by intentionally refusing to vote on a citizen initiative amendment on the definition of marriage," according to a press release issued by Vote on Marriage, the initiative petition campaign seeking to define marriage in Massachusetts as the union between a man and a woman.
 

The Vote on Marriage press release is available here.

A PDF of the Complaint is available here.

Selected initiative petitions that would have never been voted on if past State Legislatures disregarded their Constitutional duty like our fine legislators from Somerville:

1938 - Initiative to provide free public taxicab stands in cities and towns.
1950 - Initiative to establish the Massachusetts State Lottery.
1976 - Initiative to prohibit to possession, ownership, or sale of any weapon from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and which has a barrel length of less than 16 inches.
1976 - Initiative to require every beverage container to have a refund value of $.05 and to ban containers with flip-tops.
1980 - Initiative to limit local property taxes (a.k.a. Proposition 2 1/2).

Comments

[spatch]

Oh for Pete's sake.

[xuth.livejournal.com]

While I certainly don't support this specific organization, it is not uncommon for a state legislature to be sued or held in contempt for not performing duties or passing laws that the constitution (state or federal) require. A rather common theme in this type of case is creating a school funding law that passes constitutional muster. While it's not uncommon for the courts to find against the legislature and often finding the legislature in contempt of the court, the court typically has very little power to enforce this other than opening the state up for further lawsuits.

[dominic-santos.livejournal.com]

I do not support the message of Vote on Marriage; however, it concerns me that our Legislators, often announcing their support for the rights of minorities in our population, would not fulfill their duty under the Massachusetts Constitution. The initiative petition process is intended to allow the minority to have a voice, no matter how discriminatory or vile their message may be. Our Legislators, despite taking an oath of office which requires them to uphold the Massachusetts Constitution, will not allow their voice to be heard.

Issues of whether this initiative petition is constitutional on its own merits (of course, this assumes that the amendment would receive the requisite votes in 2008) can be decided at a later time by the filing of a lawsuit. The actions of our Legislators are akin to a prior restraint on speech, which no one would likely agree with.

[liamstliam.livejournal.com]

You mean I have to support Mr, Fluffernutter on something?

Well, just because he's with "us," doesn't mean I don't think he's a bobo-head.

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

The anti-love folks are getting pretty desperate if this kind of silly lawsuit is what they are trying.

[two-stabs.livejournal.com]

Anti-love, that's funny.

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

I use to call them the pro-hate people but I don't think it is as accurate. It isn't that they support hate so much as they oppose love when the people feeling it have the same genitalia.

[csbermack.livejournal.com]

Isn't this jumping the gun? I thought they had just adjourned to a later date. While everyone might conclude that they did so to avoid voting, IIRC, they haven't yet avoided voting.

The law is all about technicalities.

[ron_newman]

Yep, I believe this suit cannot be acted on before January 2, for the reason you give. And I do not see any basis for federal-court (as opposed to state-court) action here.

[inthatoneway.livejournal.com]

The constitution says they must take final action on the proposal at some point. It also says that the initiative must get 1/4 approval in two consecutive years to get on the ballot. Technically, if the legislature takes this up again next year and says, "Didn't get approval two years in a row (there being no vote this year), inititive fails", then I think they have met their duty. Technically.

That deadline is the reason for the lawsuit now.

[two-stabs.livejournal.com]

What might happen if found guilty?

[i-custard.livejournal.com]

"Selected initiative petitions that would have never been voted on if past State Legislatures disregarded their Constitutional duty like our fine legislators from Somerville:

1938 - Initiative to provide free public taxicab stands in cities and towns.
1950 - Initiative to establish the Massachusetts State Lottery.
1976 - Initiative to prohibit to possession, ownership, or sale of any weapon from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and which has a barrel length of less than 16 inches.
1976 - Initiative to require every beverage container to have a refund value of $.05 and to ban containers with flip-tops.
1980 - Initiative to limit local property taxes (a.k.a. Proposition 2 1/2)."

It is terribly insulting that you compare a ballot initiative that would put a civil right for a minority in the hands of the majority on the same level as free taxicab stands and the refund value of beverage containers.

[dominic-santos.livejournal.com]

The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution put a whole host of civil rights (speech, exercise of religion, etc.) of minorities in the hands of the majority. The majority didn't need the Bill of Rights, they were, of course, the majority.

[komos.livejournal.com]

...and were it left to popular vote, the Civil Rights Movement would have died on the vine.

[ron_newman]

Were any of the initiatives that you listed above Constitutional amendments?

Statutory initiatives have an entirely different process that does not involve a vote of the Legislature at all in order to get on the ballot.

[dominic-santos.livejournal.com]

Good point Ron! I have been in the library too long...yikes. Below see an update. Sorry about that.

(Statute) 1938 - Initiative to provide free public taxicab stands in cities and towns.
(Statute) 1950 - Initiative to establish the Massachusetts State Lottery.
(Statute) 1976 - Initiative to prohibit to possession, ownership, or sale of any weapon from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and which has a barrel length of less than 16 inches.
(Statute) 1976 - Initiative to require every beverage container to have a refund value of $.05 and to ban containers with flip-tops.
(Statute) 1980 - Initiative to limit local property taxes (a.k.a. Proposition 2 1/2).

[ron_newman]

If a nut group proposed an amendment to prohibit black people from marrying in Massachusetts, and somehow managed to get sufficient signatures, would you oppose having the legislature adjourn in order to block the proposal?

[dominic-santos.livejournal.com]

Ok...so the amendment even if passed by the Legislature and the people would be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia. For a discussion of the Loving case, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia).

Now to answer your question. If the "nut group" had met all the requirements for an initiative petition to amend the Constitution, I would still the condemn the Legislature for adjourning without a vote. As you know, they could simply vote and vote it down.

Ron, you must understand that our democracy is not always pretty. We must be slow to discriminate against views which we do not agree with, because we do not want to feel the same discrimination when an issue we agree with is going through the same process.

[ron_newman]

I'm not entirely comfortable with the Legislature's action (or in this case, inaction) but I also don't see any merit whatsoever in the federal lawsuit. And I do think all six of the Somerville legislators are acting in what they see as the best interest of their constituencies. The people of Somerville have consistently supported gay marriage.

[cos]

Note that in this case they haven't met all the requirements. At least two procedural flaws occurred before the legislature got this petition:

1. Despite unquestionable evidence of massive fraud in the signature gathering, all signatures were certified without an investigation. We have no idea how many valid signatures there really were, but we do know that very large numbers of fraudulent signatures were certified.

2. Despite a constitutional prohibition against using the initiative petition route for amendments whose main purpose is to counter a court decision, Attorney General Riley declared that this one was okay and let it go forward.

If the legislature fails to vote on it, that will be the third, and least serious, of the three procedural violations.

[cos]

Why single out Somerville's legislators? The lawsuit names a majority of the legislature (fairly obvious, because if it weren't a majority, they couldn't have done what they're being sued for in the first place).

[komos.livejournal.com]

I guess backdoor relevance. Without the specific link to Somerville legislators, the post only very loosely meets the community rule that posts have something to do with Davis and environs.

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

I'd like to vote on whether Republicans and Christians can get married. Where's my constitutional amendment?

[cos]

Start the signature drive!

Heck, if you use fraud as extensively as these people did, you might actually get enough signatures. Too bad Tom Riley will no longer be in place to certify all those fraudulent signatures without investigating :/

[artic-monkeys.livejournal.com]

Yes and if you pay for the signatures (astroturfing) you don't need a real grassroots, democratic method to push your agenda.