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

[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.

[komos.livejournal.com]

Your post is a trifle misleading. The senators and reps in question were not singled out in the suit, but are merely amongst the named parties. Additionally, while there are allegations that the state legislature violated these citizens' Constitutional rights, those violations are, as yet, still allegations and not fact of law.

VoM hasn't filed a complaint based on the Massachusetts Constitution. They're filing a complaint with a federal court based on alleged violations of their rights under the US Constitution. From what I understand, this approach was used because the consensus was that it would not have prevailed in a Massachusetts court.

[dominic-santos.livejournal.com]

First point re: Sen. and Reps. being singled out could be correct.

Second point re: allegations is not correct with regard to my post. My post states that they were sued, not found liable, therefore clearly stating that the action is not resolved.

Third point re: Mass. v. U.S. Constitution. I didn't say the suit was based upon a provision of the Massachusetts consitution. The suit arises from legislators violatin thier constitutional duty under the Massachusetts constitution but poses issues of U.S. constitutional law.

[komos.livejournal.com]

If it could be correct, then pray, why did you say "Somerville legislators" and not "Massachusetts legislators." There were a whole lot of parties named in the suit.

My second point stands. Your choice of wording specifically implicates four individuals, and is suggestive of wrongdoing. While you did not indicate in your subject heading that the legislators had been found guilty, you have stated elsewhere that, "Our Legislators, despite taking an oath of office which requires them to uphold the Massachusetts Constitution, will not allow their voice to be heard." It's probably safe to say that your approach, if not specifically tied to a particular agenda, is certainly not without bias. In your opinion, our legislators have, in fact, violated their Constitutional requirements. A similar complaint filed by the gov. with the MA SJC is widely thought to be without merit.

So far, I'm seeing naught but a broad propaganda piece that relates to this community solely on the basis of its legislators being named parties in the suit. Is there actual relevance, or is you intent merely to parrot the ADF in an attempt to smear a handful of legislators?

[dominic-santos.livejournal.com]

No agenda here. I support gay marriage as a matter of policy. Goodridge was a bad constitutional decision. I much rather accord rights to the homosexual community through a popularly approved constitutional amendment.

My point is that our Legislators are blocking the voice of a minority group, those who would like to see marriage be between a man and woman, that is attempting to use a vehicle (the initiative process) that was intended to protect minority rights.

[komos.livejournal.com]

You know, I was about to ask you on what grounds you claim Goodridge was a bad decision, but given that you're suggesting that we should pursue a constitutional amendment to afford rights to a group who have been ruled already to be protected by the constitution, I'll just assume that you meant to go on a screed about "judicial activism" or somesuch. Really, there's only so much one can take.

I still question the post's relevance to this community, but whatever.

[ckd]

Fine. Let's start an initiative petition amending the Constitution of Massachusetts to officially declare the "Vote on Marriage" group a bunch of addlepated morons.

I suspect that we could get enough signatures, and maybe even the 50 votes two years running.