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.

[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.

[two-stabs.livejournal.com]

Anti-love, that's funny.

[two-stabs.livejournal.com]

What might happen if found guilty?

[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.

[two-stabs.livejournal.com]

As ridiculous as I find the notion that marriage shouldn't be extended to all people regardless of gender and sexual orientation, a pet peeve of mine has always been those wildly innacurate labels. I don't think pro-hate is any more or less on point than anti-love. Anyway, yeah. No intent to offend.

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

I think anti-love is exactly on point. That is the crux of the issue. The folks who are against gay marriage are against gay love it is the root of their agenda.

[two-stabs.livejournal.com]

You'd find more folks who are expressly against gay marriage than they are against gay love. That's all I'm saying -- anti gay marriage is the thing. Anti-love sounds misleading, like the folks who oppose it are demons or something.

[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.

[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.

[koloratur.livejournal.com]

Would monsters be more appropriate? Or selfish, small minded assholes? Honestly...I can't see why people should tiptoe around the feelings of those who would deny two people in love the right to get married (and all of the legal benefits and protections that come with it.) No slam against you intended at all; I just can't find any common ground with or sympathy for people who oppose gay marriage.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[komos.livejournal.com]

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

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.