CLT
UPDATE
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
"Best Legislature Money Can
Buy"
serves up our latest constitutional crisis
It didn't have to come to this. We're dealing with the aftershocks of an earthquake, when
simply breaking some new ground would have been just fine, and the Legislature has no one
but itself to blame.
The Supreme Judicial Court's overreaching decision on gay marriage makes a reasoned and
necessary discussion of the chasm between the reality of relationships today and the
still lagging protections, rights and benefits legally available much more difficult than
it needed to be....
The refusal of elected leaders to grapple with this issue until it was forced down their
throats is a lapse in leadership that no wrongheaded court decision should obscure.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
SJC on marriage not the last word
Secretary of State William F. Galvin's office was forced to add five people into the elections division yesterday to handle the barrage of incoming phone calls from citizens seeking the telephone numbers for their local legislators. Some House and Senate members said privately that they would prefer doing nothing, to avoid political fallout that would result from casting a vote on the issue.
Last year, the SJC issued a similarly broad ruling after the Legislature repeatedly refused to fund the public campaign finance statute known as the Clean Elections Law. In that case, the justices repeatedly implored the Legislature to comply with its decision and either fund or repeal the law. When the Legislature balked, the court ordered the sale of state property to raise money for the law.
"It's clear that the court did not want to go all the way here, but wanted to hand it back to the Legislature," said John Bonifaz, a lawyer in the Clean Elections case. "They won't be satisfied by total silence or a refusal to act. The question is what they consider adequate."
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Lawmakers are divided on response
There's plenty of blame to go around, but let's start with the gutless wonders in the Legislature.
Last year, all it would have taken was one vote of the Legislature, and this radical-chic fiasco would have been on the fast track to the ballot next year. If the sheeple in the Legislature had any stones, it wouldn't have mattered if the four Politically Correct SJC hacks had tried to legislate from the bench, because the voters would have rendered it moot next fall.
But the Legislature did nothing, and now are faced with this fait accompli, the Roe v. Wade of the decade....
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Layabout legislators left door open for court jesters
by Howie Carr
In a rare move, the Senate on Tuesday suspended a joint rule to allow Democrats to continue overriding Gov. Romney's budget vetoes in 2004.
Senate budget chief Therese Murray said senators want to keep their options open as they attempt to send two appropriations bills - a supplemental budget and an economic stimulus bill - to the governor's desk with formal sessions for this year due to end Wednesday at midnight.
If the House also suspends the rule, the Legislature could carry over budget vetoes and attempt to override them in 2004.
Senate Republicans ripped the move and blasted the Democratic majority for being unable to deliver on top priorities in a timely manner.
State House News Service
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
[Excerpt] Senate suspends rule to preserve veto override options
State Senator Cheryl Jacques, a Needham Democrat, yesterday submitted her resignation to be effective in January, allowing the Democratic leadership to set a special election to fill her seat on March 2 -- the day of the state's presidential primary, when Democratic voters are expected to far outnumber Republicans.
Traditionally, the House and Senate set dates for special elections only when the seat is vacated, not based on a letter of future resignation.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
News Brief: Jacques sets January departure date
"It is not right when you try to rig an election," said Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees, R-East Longmeadow. "It's so cute, so sneaky and so, in my mind, unsenatorial that I can't even think of anything to say about it. I'm actually at a loss for words." ...
Dufresne said the special election can be scheduled no sooner than 14 or 15 weeks after the day when Jacques submitted her letter of resignation. March 2 is exactly 15 weeks from yesterday....
State Rep. Scott Brown, a Wrentham Republican who has announced his candidacy for Jacques' seat, disagreed with the Democrats' rationale for scheduling the election on March 2.
"It shows a complete disregard for the process and does a disservice to the citizens of the district," he said. "There's a clear effort to steal the election, and it's kind of offensive. It's certainly offensive to me."
The MetroWest Daily News
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Election date angers GOP: Special vote to fill Jacques' seat
will coincide with presidential primary
Senate Special Election Order
State House News Service
Excerpt from state Senate debate
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Well here we are, again.
I don't care which side you come down on in this
debate over the definition of marriage, the one thing we should all
agree on is: "The Best Legislature Money Can Buy" -- our
"full-time" legislators who're quickly heading home today for
the remainder of the year as soon as they struggle through bills that have stood idle since they returned
from the entire summer season off -- have again served us up another
constitutional crisis, this one of national significance.
Last year it was legislators' intransigence over the
Clean Elections Law passed by the voters, to a point where the state
Supreme Judicial Court had to step in and order the sale of state
property to fulfill the void left by cowardly legislative inaction.
Now it's the SJC again stepping into the vacuum
created by "The Best Legislature Money Can Buy," having to
define "marriage" simply because our incapable legislators
didn't have the courage to vote two years ago when a proposed amendment
was presented to them "by the people" -- all 130,000 of them
-- according to the constitutional process.
Had legislators in their constitutional convention then
voted on the people's constitutional initiative, the
court almost certainly would have awaited the people's decision on a
constitutional amendment in 2004. Next fall this issue would have been
decided one way or the other, forever.
Nobody seems to know what yesterday's ruling really
means, including the court which was less than definitive when allowing
the Legislature to do something in the next 180 days. But 180
days to most legislators is a lifetime that can be put off until Day 179
if not 180 -- and by 180 they'll be told how to vote.
"You can run, but you can't hide." One day
I hope they are actually required to vote.
While the state supreme court justices were again
doing their jobs making laws in the absence of a legislature making
them, what was "The Best Legislature Money Can Buy" doing?
Why, of course, most of them were protecting their power and
incumbency. What the heck else do you think they're there to
accomplish for crying out loud?
The senate was busy "suspending its
rules" -- as if rules or laws imposed by them on the rest of us
ever stand in their way. "Rules" on them are adopted
for sound-bites and photo-ops when reformers become too effective and
have to be put off ... for a while. "Rules" to them are
merely a convenience.
"In a rare move, the Senate on Tuesday suspended a joint rule to allow Democrats to continue overriding Gov. Romney's budget vetoes in
2004," the State House News Service reported. "Senate budget chief Therese Murray said senators want to keep their options open..."
Now there's a substantive rule that provides
confidence that rules exist.
In another "rare move," the senate also
voted yesterday to let state Sen. Cheryl Jacques qualify for an
additional year of pension benefits for a couple more days into 2004
"serving" as a senator, "in the interest of her
district" of course, while still arranging for the election to
replace her to be held on the day of the Democratic presidential
primary election, giving a major advantage to the Democrat
establishment.
Ah, business-as-usual on Beacon Hill for "The
Best Legislature Money Can Buy." The big issue of the day
yesterday was -- maintaining power at any cost.
And we wonder why we're the laughingstock of the
nation?
Because we continue to let this happen we enable it
to happen. Some among us -- our friends, relatives, business acquaintances
-- don't even realize what a national laughingstock we deservedly are.
We just keep paying more and more for them to earn that distinction
for all of us.
Republican state Rep. Scott Brown is running for
state Sen. Cheryl Jacques "former" seat whenever she finally
deigns to vacate it. Electing him would at least begin to help
change our national image as a cesspool of legislative corruption and
incompetence.
Anything less will perpetuate and strengthen that
well-deserved perception.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
SJC on marriage not the last word
It didn't have to come to this. We're dealing with the aftershocks of an earthquake, when simply breaking some new ground would have been just fine, and the Legislature has no one but itself to blame.
The Supreme Judicial Court's overreaching decision on gay marriage makes a reasoned and necessary discussion of the chasm between the reality of relationships today and the still lagging protections, rights and benefits legally available much more difficult than it needed to be.
Extremists on both sides - alternatively declaring a wholesale victory for homosexual rights and decrying the wholesale destruction of society - will dominate what could have been, and should have been, a thoughtful legislative debate.
The refusal of elected leaders to grapple with this issue until it was forced down their throats is a lapse in leadership that no wrongheaded court decision should obscure. But here we are and the question is where do we go from here.
The SJC makes no bones about the Legislature's daunting task. "Certainly our decision today marks a significant change in the definition of marriage as it has been inherited from the common law, and understood by many societies for centuries, the majority opinion states.
"We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others," dubbing this definition a "reformulation."
Such a reformulation is repugnant to many who view marriage as a deeply held tradition, steeped in history, and a fundamental cornerstone of our society. Marriage is indeed all of those things.
And it is the responsibility of the elected representatives of the people, not a majority of a panel of unelected judges, to determine when, or if, such a reformulation is acceptable.
The court's intrusion on this legislative prerogative - and gay marriage advocates' insistence on short-circuiting the political process - will likely harden views that have already significantly shifted nationwide in the wake of this summer's U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with privacy rights and consensual sexual acts.
A new Pew Research Center poll confirms this shift with opposition to gay marriage growing to 59 percent, up from 53 percent in July.
It is in this highly polarized arena that the Legislature must resist the temptation to cater to extreme views on either side and instead seek common ground.
It's worth listening to advice from Vermont leaders who have already tread this path. "I guess I would encourage as broad and deep an educational and dialogue effort as they can sustain at every level of the community as a whole to try to get as many people as possible to agree about the issue of common humanity that's at stake here," former state Rep. Thomas Little, a Republican who was chairman of the Vt. House Judiciary Committee in 2000 and a lead author of that state's civil unions law, told the Associated Press.
"These are your friends and co-workers and neighbors who are asking for a legal structure to make their families as strong as the families across the street," said Little.
The SJC opinion similarly states, "No one disputes that the plaintiff couples are families, that many are parents and that the children they are raising, like all children, need and should have the fullest opportunity to grow up in a secure, protected family unit."
That's a place to start. If it is premature to change the definition of marriage, and it surely is, then common ground can be found in the recognition that these non-traditional families do indeed exist. Children are being raised in them. Many same sex couples are in loving, committed relationships indistinguishable from any other, and already receive legally defined benefits like health insurance and bereavement leave.
How to create a legal structure in keeping with the SJC decision which fairly delineates these family and individual rights, short of marriage, is the next step.
A constitutional amendment defining marriage as an institution between a man and a woman is also now an appropriate, and necessary, course, though that process won't conclude, at the earliest, until 2006.
The SJC has given the Legislature a far shorter window in which to fashion a resolution - 180 days - and little maneuvering room in which to do it.
The law must keep pace with the times in a world that is rapidly changing. But there are times when change comes too fast, too soon, and instead of moving forward, we move backward. This threatens to be one of those times.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Lawmakers are divided on response
By Frank Phillips and Rick Klein, Globe Staff
The Supreme Judicial Court's decision approving gay marriage threw Beacon Hill into a frenzy yesterday, with Governor Mitt Romney and Democratic leaders in the Legislature considering a flurry of options -- ranging from fully backing the court's ruling, to advancing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, to something in between.
Romney reiterated his opposition to gay marriage, declaring he had "3,000 years of recorded history" on his side, while still offering support for a handful of domestic partner benefits to gay couples. The Senate's Democratic leader, meanwhile, said the court left the Legislature little choice but to accept gay marriage.
"This decision is very clear," said Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, an East Boston Democrat who has previously said he opposes gay marriage. "It's somewhat ambiguous [as to the Legislature's role]. They're giving us 180 days to take action, but we're not sure that any action that we take is going to affect the decision of the court."
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, a strong opponent of gay marriage and a social conservative who is a key player in the debate, declined to comment. Like Romney, he has endorsed a proposed constitutional amendment that would establish marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman, effectively outlawing gay marriage.
But the amendment couldn't be finalized until 2006, because it has to be approved by the Legislature in two consecutive sessions, and then sent to the voters for ratification. That could mean more than two years of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, regardless of how lawmakers view the proposition.
Romney said he would work on two tracks, pushing to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage while also working to provide "basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to same-sex couples and other nontraditional relationships." He said he would support health-care benefits and inheritance rights, but said he could not list the full slate of rights he is comfortable with granting.
"I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts," Romney said. "But I can tell you that over the next several months that I will work with legislative leadership, and other legislators, and community leaders to decide what kind of statute we can fashion which is consistent with the law."
At the same time, though, he said he would abide by the ruling. "We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the Supreme Judicial Court, even if we don't agree with it," Romney said.
As they pored over the decision, lawmakers and staffers tried to find some wiggle room in the court's instructions. One Romney aide said that because the decision was so close, the court may be willing to accept something short of gay marriage, at least temporarily.
As part of the court's opinion, the justices ruled that their order be delayed "for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion." In an apparent reference to their resolve, the justices cited a 1983 case in which the SJC ordered the cleanup of county jails, and said a lack of funds was not an adequate excuse for the state to ignore its ruling.
To the plaintiffs and other legal observers, the wording of the opinion suggests a firmness of purpose on the part of the SJC. Mary Bonauto, the lawyer who argued the case for the gay couples before the court, dismissed any notion that the Legislature or Romney could water down the SJC's decision and establish an acceptable framework that falls short of gay marriage.
"There's no suggestion [in the opinion] that a parallel system would be adequate," she said. "I can't see anything that can be done. Frankly the real option for the Legislature is to clean up the statutes."
Some lawmakers celebrated the decision, calling it an important statement on behalf of civil rights, and said they would back legislation to make it easier for gay couples to obtain marriage licenses. Several liberal House and Senate members said they saw no need to negotiate with Romney about anything short of gay marriage.
"This is a new day," said state Representative Elizabeth A. Malia, a Jamaica Plain Democrat.
If the Legislature approves domestic partnership benefits or civil unions but opposes gay marriage, the issue will almost certainly wind up before the SJC again. The court would then have to decide whether to order marriage licenses to be issued in the face of legislative opposition.
On the other hand, the forces opposed to gay marriage face a lengthy battle to change the constitution. The members of the House and Senate who meet jointly as a constitutional convention each session have before them a proposed amendment that would outlaw gay marriage. The joint session met last week, but did not take up the measure, and instead rescheduled the convention for Feb. 11.
It is not clear which side of the issue has the majority among the 200 House and Senate members. Both sides said the ruling would bolster support for their causes in the Legislature, but both sides also concede that any vote in the Legislature would be close.
State Representative Philip Travis, the lead sponsor of the amendment to ban gay marriage, said the decision would make it easier to attract a majority for his amendment, since the court has effectively removed civil unions as an option.
Travis added that if the Legislature doesn't act within the 180-day window, he doesn't think the court can force clerks to issue marriage licenses to gay couples -- an assertion that's sharply disputed by the winning side in the case.
"When we pass 180 days, what are you going to do to the Legislature?" said Travis, a Rehoboth Democrat. "With all due respect to the Supreme Court . . . you've given us a decision and given it to us to enforce. Therefore, if we don't enforce it, there is no remedy under the law of Massachusetts."
Public opinion polls show an evenly divided Massachusetts electorate. A Globe poll taken in early April showed 50 percent of registered voters were in favor of gay marriage, with 44 percent opposed.
Secretary of State William F. Galvin's office was forced to add five people into the elections division yesterday to handle the barrage of incoming phone calls from citizens seeking the telephone numbers for their local legislators. Some House and Senate members said privately that they would prefer doing nothing, to avoid political fallout that would result from casting a vote on the issue.
Last year, the SJC issued a similarly broad ruling after the Legislature repeatedly refused to fund the public campaign finance statute known as the Clean Elections Law. In that case, the justices repeatedly implored the Legislature to comply with its decision and either fund or repeal the law. When the Legislature balked, the court ordered the sale of state property to raise money for the law.
"It's clear that the court did not want to go all the way here, but wanted to hand it back to the Legislature," said John Bonifaz, a lawyer in the Clean Elections case. "They won't be satisfied by total silence or a refusal to act. The question is what they consider adequate."
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Layabout legislators left door open for court jesters
by Howie Carr
There's plenty of blame to go around, but let's start with the gutless wonders in the Legislature.
Last year, all it would have taken was one vote of the Legislature, and this radical-chic fiasco would have been on the fast track to the ballot next year. If the sheeple in the Legislature had any stones, it wouldn't have mattered if the four Politically Correct SJC hacks had tried to legislate from the bench, because the voters would have rendered it moot next fall.
But the Legislature did nothing, and now are faced with this fait accompli, the Roe v. Wade of the decade. And this is just the beginning, folks. Now that the SJC says marriage means nothing, it can mean anything. We all know what polygamy is, but how about polyamory? Get familiar with that word, folks. It means group marriage, and if you check, there's nothing in the state constitution prohibiting that either, so it's in play.
And none of this had to happen. It could have been handled last year, when grass-roots groups were trying to put a question on the 2004 ballot that would have allowed 3 million citizens to decide what marriage is.
But up stepped then-Senate President Tom Birmingham. He didn't care that 130,000 people had signed petitions to put the marriage question on the ballot. He fast-gaveled a close to the combined session of the Legislature - the constitutional convention - and without a vote by the Legislature, the question couldn't be put on next year's ballot.
A handful of the 200 reps and senators loudly protested as Birmingham deep-sixed democracy. But most of the legislative sheeple just said nothing. They didn't want a recorded vote.
Now this SJC decision looms as a crisis for a lot of these reps. Mitt Romney's recruitment of Republican candidates just got a whole lot easier.
Thank you, Tom Birmingham. And it certainly paid off for him big time in his run for governor last year. He finished third in the Democratic primary. Same-sex marriage is such a popular issue.
Another thank you to former Gov. Argeo P. Cellucci. Remember when he had Big Dig troubles and fired Jim Kerasiotes? To change the subject, Argeo broke the glass and appointed as his chief justice Margaret Marshall, the wife of a columnist for The New York Times, which owns The Boston Globe, and gee, how does the Globe come down on the subject of "gender-neutral" marriage?
A big winner here: the Catholic Church. Suddenly, the archdiocese again reflects the majority opinion.
Another winner: House Speaker Tom Finneran. He, too, finds himself in rare agreement with the electorate.
A big loser: the foundering presidential campaign of John Forbes Kerry. Whatever little chance he had ended at 10 a.m. EST yesterday. They used to call him "the French-looking candidate." Now he's looking French-Canadian. He is, as his Gallic pals say, finis.
How odd that the court waited to issue its decision until the day before the Legislature was slated to adjourn for the year. Timing is everything, isn't it? And the next time some windbag tells you we shouldn't elect judges, remind them of how the SJC thumbed its nose at the people yesterday.
One last quote for you. It's from John Adams in 1798: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
How do you think John Adams would have voted on gay marriage?
Howie Carr's radio show can be heard every weekday afternoon on WRKO AM 680, WHYN AM 560, WGAN AM 560, WEIM AM 1280 and WXTK 95.1 FM.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Jacques sets January departure date
News Brief
State Senator Cheryl Jacques, a Needham Democrat, yesterday submitted her resignation to be effective in January, allowing the Democratic leadership to set a special election to fill her seat on March 2 -- the day of the state's presidential primary, when Democratic voters are expected to far outnumber Republicans.
Traditionally, the House and Senate set dates for special elections only when the seat is vacated, not based on a letter of future resignation.
Senator Brian Lees, the minority leader, slammed the decision, saying, "It's not right to rig an election." GOP leaders want the primary on March 2 and the final election in April.
But Senator Michael W. Morrissey, a Quincy Democrat, said the state can save by doubling up the special election with the presidential primary.
Jacques, who will head the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign, said she wants to serve until January to help her district. She also gains a full extra year for her pension benefits.
Return to
top
The MetroWest Daily News
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Election date angers GOP: Special vote to fill Jacques' seat
will coincide with presidential primary
By Michael Kunzelman, Staff Writer
The state Senate voted yesterday to hold the special election for state Sen. Cheryl Jacques' seat on the same day as the March 2 presidential primary, a decision Republican legislators claim will give an unfair advantage to the Democrats.
Ann Dufresne, a spokeswoman for Senate President Robert Travaglini, said holding the special election on the same day as the presidential primary will cost between $150,000 to $200,000 less than if it were held separately.
"It only makes sense not to burden communities," she said.
Senate Republicans, however, said the scheduling of the special election is politically motivated because Democrats will flock to the polls that day to elect a candidate to oppose President Bush.
"It is not right when you try to rig an election," said Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees, R-East Longmeadow. "It's so cute, so sneaky and so, in my mind, unsenatorial that I can't even think of anything to say about it. I'm actually at a loss for words."
Jacques, a Needham Democrat, is leaving the Senate and moving to Washington, D.C., to serve as executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights political organization. Her Norfolk, Bristol and Middlesex District includes Natick, Wellesley and Needham.
Jacques, who submitted her formal letter of resignation yesterday, said Jan. 4 will be her last day in the Senate.
Travaglini picked March 2 as the date for the election, and the Senate approved the choice by a vote of 31 to 7.
Dufresne said the special election can be scheduled no sooner than 14 or 15 weeks after the day when Jacques submitted her letter of resignation. March 2 is exactly 15 weeks from yesterday.
Jacques said Travaglini did not consult her when he settled on March 2 as the date for the special election.
"I was more than happy to accommodate him because I wanted the Senate president to move forward with filling my seat," she said.
She downplayed the political significance of Travaglini's move.
"The people in my district will vote for the best person," she said.
State Rep. Scott Brown, a Wrentham Republican who has announced his candidacy for Jacques' seat, disagreed with the Democrats' rationale for scheduling the election on March 2.
"It shows a complete disregard for the process and does a disservice to the citizens of the district," he said. "There's a clear effort to steal the election, and it's kind of offensive. It's certainly offensive to me."
The list of Democrats in the race includes Angus McQuilken, a Millis resident and Jacques' longtime chief of staff; Dan Matthews, chairman of the Needham Board of Selectmen; Wellesley resident Democrat Jim Klocke, executive vice president of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce; and Needham Selectman Jerry Wasserman.
Return to
top
State House News Service
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Excerpt from State Senate debate coverage
JACQUES TO RESIGN AT 11:59 PM ON JAN. 4, 2004: The Senate agreed to print in the journal a communication from Sen. Jacques. In the communication, Jacques clarifies her plans for departing from the Senate. She states that she will irrevocably resign from her position as state senator as of 11:59 pm on Jan 4, 2004 and assume responsibility for her new position as executive director of the Human Rights Campaign on Jan. 5, 2004. She states further that it has been her honor and pleasure to serve her district for the past 11 years.
Members rose and applauded Sen. Jacques.
MARCH 2 SPECIAL ELECTION ORDER: Question came on a Morrissey order accepting the resignation of Sen. Jacques effective Jan. 4, 2004, declaring the district vacant that day, and directing the Senate president to issue a precept setting for March 2, 2004 as the day for an election to fill the vacancy in the Norfolk, Bristol and Middlesex district presently served by Sen. Jacques. The district includes precincts 2 and 4 in Franklin; precincts B, F, and G in Wellesley; the towns of Millis, Needham, Norfolk, Plainville and Wrentham; wards 1 and 2 and precinct A of ward 3 of Attleboro; the town of North Attleborough; precincts 6, 7, 9 and 10 of Sherborn; and the towns of Natick and Wayland.
Sen. Lees said we are going to be going through a number of points of order over the next bit of time. This is as partisan as anything I have ever seen in here. I have to vehemently oppose this. First, I understand the order given by Sen. Morrissey. However it is my understanding that only the Senate, through the president and Rules Committee, can set a date for an election, not an individual senator by order. Show me where in the rules it allows an individual.
Sen. Travaglini said the order from the senator dictates the president to set a date certain for the vacancy upon the resignation I received and accepted tonight. The responsibility still falls within the realm of the president.
Sen. Lees said when the Senate President picks a date certain - I assume the deal has been struck - does he have to bring it to the Senate for a vote?
Sen. Travaglini said the chair would like to read the article as it relates to vacancies. It says vacancies can be filled upon an order adopted by a majority.
Sen. Lees said will we vote on this order or will the president present an order to vote on?
Sen. Travaglini said this directs the president to define a date certain for a primary election. The assumption that it will be on March 2 is in the order and the body will vote on the order of the president and the precepts will be issued under the President's signature.
Sen. Lees said so another order has to be coming from the president. This one is from the distinguished senator from Government Regulations who is also a lawyer.
Sen. Travaglini said the order is ordering the president to issue precepts on a certain date.
Sen. Lees said then you are going to vote on this, which says you are going to do something. I want everyone to realize a lot of the public thinks when we are in this building you are up to no good. A lot of the public thinks when we want to sneak something through, we just do it. I have thought of us as a body where we have done stuff pretty above board.
This order from Sen. Morrissey it's so cute and so sneaky and so in my mind unsenatorial that I just can't think of anything else to say about it. I am at a loss for words. I am going to dig down and try to find some. I have been racking my brain. It's a half hour since I saw the order.
It is not right when you try to rig an election. It is actually illegal.
What is happening here - I know the senators realize this - the president is trying to make sure the election is held the same day as the presidential primary. George Bush is going to be elected anyway but the Democratic Party will pick a nominee. We have an earlier election day. There will be a loud field. John Kerry is going to get trounced. Probably Howard Dean will win. You are wrong on that race and wrong on this matter Mr. President.
Everyone ought to be on a level playing field. At least when someone is running they know it's election day for everyone. When a primary is held for the Democratic presidential primary and there is none on the Republican side, it's just going to be a general election for this seat and the deck is going to be stacked. The people of the district deserve fairness. The public deserves fairness.
I am not going to win this vote. Every Democrat will vote for it and every Republican against it. You are not going to win in the public opinion poll on this one. You will be wrong on your presidential pick and wrong on the date of this election. Our US Senator will lose here and the Democrat who you have tried to get into office is going to lose as well. You're a better person than that. This is a shameful act of this body.
Sen. Lees requested a roll call and there was support.
Sen. Morrissey said if George Bush is reelected it will be the first time he was elected. [Light applause] The popular vote was won by someone else. I have always enjoyed working with Sen. Jacques. You either wait and don't call an election or you put someone in place as quickly as we can. Who would like to come in here in the spring with the issues we face? We want to put someone in quickly, regardless of who they are, to represent 160,000 people. And we can also save some money. It won't cost the cities and towns anything for the primary because we will pay for that. But talking about rigging an election, I have never heard anything about it in my life. There were 30,000 people who turned out for the special election for the senator from Acton. It shouldn't matter what day an election is, just who turns out. I hope the order is adopted.
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 31-7, ORDER ADOPTED
Return to
top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For
more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|