CLT
UPDATE
Thursday, January 8, 2004
"After such vacancies shall
happen"
"... all vacancies in the senate, arising by death, removal out of the state, or otherwise, shall be supplied as soon as may be,
after such vacancies shall happen."
The Massachusetts Constitution
Article IV of Chapter I, Section II; The Senate
High court justices questioned state Republican Party lawyers Tuesday, challenging the GOP argument that the Senate violated the state Constitution by ordering a special election to fill former Sen. Cheryl Jacques seat before she actually left office....
Recognizing the potential role that politics played in scheduling the election, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall questioned whether the Senate vote was unconstitutional.
"You say, 'That's just plain unfair,'" she told Trimmier. "It may be unfair, but is it unconstitutional?"
Another justice, Martha Sosman, referencing the GOP's interpretation of a vacancy, suggested that the party's case may be based only on a "slight grammatical ambiguity."
State House News Service
Tuesday, January 6, 2003
High court justices question GOP claims about Senate election date
"... all vacancies in the senate, arising by death, removal out of the state, or otherwise, shall be supplied as soon as may be,
after such vacancies shall happen."
Peter Sacks, a lawyer from Attorney General Thomas Reilly's office, denied the move was unconstitutional and rejected the GOP's allegation that the state Senate is trying to rig the outcome of the election.
"The Senate's order served two legitimate purposes: filling the vacancy earlier and saving public money," Sacks argued....
Sacks said there is nothing in the state constitution that requires the Senate to wait until Jacques leaves office before it scheduled the special election -- even if it worked to the Democrats' advantage....
Jacques, who submitted her letter of resignation on Nov. 18, officially vacated her seat on Jan. 4.
The MetroWest Daily News
Wednesday, January 7, 2003
Supreme Court to rule on special election date
"... all vacancies in the senate, arising by death, removal out of the state, or otherwise, shall be supplied as soon as may be,
after such vacancies shall happen."
The state's high court ruled Wednesday that the Democrat-controlled Senate lawfully set a special election date on Super Tuesday, when Democrats are expected to flood polling
stations. The ruling generated applause from the Upper Branch and complaints from the
Corner Office.
The abbreviated ruling, which will be followed by an opinion from the Supreme Judicial Court ...
At Logan Airport, where he touted the arrival of JetBlue air service, Romney responded to the ruling. "I think the SJC has to do what they can to interpret the law in the most appropriate way," Romney said....
In its short ruling, the SJC determined that "the terms of the Constitution do not prohibit the Senate from acting to set the schedule for a special election to fill the vacancy in the Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex district, before the vacancy actually exists."
Senate President Robert Travaglini announced the ruling during Wednesday morning's formal Senate session. "There there," he said after reading the ruling. "It's a good way to start the year."
State House News Service
Wednesday, January 7, 2004
SJC upholds Senate election date,
Romney & GOP rail against Democrats
A new coalition of conservative political and religious groups that oppose same-sex
marriage said yesterday that it hopes to tilt the scales in its favor by arguing that Bay
State voters should be allowed to settle the divisive issue, not the Supreme Judicial
Court....
Next month's constitutional convention is scheduled to consider a proposed amendment,
filed by Republican state Senator Michael R. Knapik, that would require judges to run for
reelection every six years.
Currently, high court justices are nominated by the governor and confirmed by the
Governor's Council. Six of the seven justices on the SJC were appointed by Republican
governors, who have held the Corner Office since 1991. Democratic House Speaker Thomas
M. Finneran has voiced support for judicial elections, after the Clean Elections fight of
2002....
[Arline Isaacson, a member of the executive committee of MassEquality, a
coalition of gay rights groups] said the idea of judges running for election is being proposed only
because the SJC did not agree with gay marriage opponents. She argued it would be foolish
to press forward with judicial elections because of one ruling.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, January 8, 2004
[Excerpt] Gay marriage foes push referendum
Coalition formed to fight SJC ruling
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
What part of "shall happen" in the state
Constitution can the state Supreme Judicial Kangaroo Court fail to
understand, even if Justice Sosman finds it somehow ambiguous?
There's been a longstanding debate over definitions
between "will" and "shall" in legislation and law.
"Shall" has always prevailed as the most powerful, meaning
what you and I would think both terms would mean ... unquestionably that
it will be accomplished for the people.
There it is in Article Four of our state
Constitution, Chapter I, Section II; The Senate: "... after such
vacancies shall happen."
Do words matter any more, even the definitions?
Does even a constitution?
Yesterday we had yet another devastating precedent
set by the SJKC, one which the court will echo, continue to build upon
and further usurp constitutional law, as it has in the past.
In a previous but recent SJKC decision, "Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage & another vs. Secretary of the
Commonwealth" (SJC-08966. Dec. 30, 2003), it ruled: "We have already stated that
Art. 48 'provides no judicial remedy' for 'the failure of a joint session to
act,' LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 34 (1992).'"
It apparently could not and clearly would not order the Legislature to
take its Constitutionally mandated vote. The SJKC was a party to that
crushed challenge to defend term limits as well.
In LIMITS v. President of the Senate, the SJKC cited its
previous ruling as grounds for its precedent-dependent decision. As we recall it, that earlier ruling came about when CLT challenged
the Legislature's refusal to vote on one of its petitions for constitutional tax limitation back in the late-'70s/early-'80s.
The SJKC will someday cite this latest ruling too,
the next time it has to overreach to satisfy its paymasters in the
Legislature.
Arline Isaacson, a member of the executive committee of MassEquality, a
coalition of gay rights groups, "said the idea of judges running for election is being proposed only
because the SJC did not agree with gay marriage opponents. She argued it would be foolish
to press forward with judicial elections because of one ruling,"
according to the Boston Globe ["Gay marriage foes push referendum; Coalition formed to fight SJC
ruling," Jan. 8, by Raphael Lewis].
First, the concept of electing judges and justices
didn't arise "only after the gay marriage decision" --
or any one decision. It's been put forth since the court's ruling
on Clean Elections, the bane of the Beacon Hill pols, that is now
gathering momentum among those of us who revere a true separation of
powers, or at least better than we now have, perhaps.
Second and finally, if we have a high court in which
most who know what's happening have no faith, then where's"
justice," law, and order?
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
State House News Service
Tuesday, January 6, 2003
High court justices question GOP claims about Senate election date
By Amy Lambiaso
High court justices questioned state Republican Party lawyers Tuesday, challenging the GOP argument that the Senate violated the state Constitution by ordering a special election to fill former Sen. Cheryl Jacques seat before she actually left office.
Attorney Roscoe Trimmier Jr., representing the Republican Party, said the Senate's vote on Nov. 18 to schedule the special election on March 2, the same day as the Democratic presidential primary, was unconstitutional.
Trimmier said the state Constitution calls for a special election to be scheduled, within a specified timetable, "after the vacancy occurs." Jacques officially left office Jan. 4 to head the Washington D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights organization.
"This is a fairly obvious attempt at partisan politics," Trimmier said in an interview following the hearing. "The Senate went to great lengths to do this in November because they couldn't meet the statutory deadlines after January."
Recognizing the potential role that politics played in scheduling the election, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall questioned whether the Senate vote was unconstitutional.
"You say, 'That's just plain unfair,'" she told Trimmier. "It may be unfair, but is it unconstitutional?"
Another justice, Martha Sosman, referencing the GOP's interpretation of a vacancy, suggested that the party's case may be based only on a "slight grammatical ambiguity."
Trimmier argues the Senate violated Article 9 of the state's Declaration of Rights, which gives citizens the "equal right to elect officers and be elected." The Senate "manipulated" the election date and "breached its constitutional and statutory obligations," the party's brief stated.
"The people ought not to be represented based on an unconstitutional election," Trimmier said. "There is an undue advantage for one political party over another here."
According to state election laws, eligible candidates must gather 300 signatures, nine weeks prior to the election date. In this case, those signatures were due by Dec. 23, 2003. Trimmier said the special election should be held on March 16 instead, which would give candidates until Jan. 13 to file signatures.
Secretary of State William Galvin has asked the SJC to rule on the case by Friday to allow sufficient time for absentee ballots to be printed and mailed out.
Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks, representing the state, pushed the court to dismiss the claim because he said there was no constitutional violation. The Senate took preparatory steps in scheduling the election before the seat was vacant to have the seat filled as quickly as possible, he said, and "there is no language to prevent that."
By holding the election on the same date as the statewide Democratic presidential primary, the Senate will fill the seat sooner and spare communities from more than $50,000 in additional election costs, Sacks said.
Trimmier said the cost savings from holding the special election on primary day are negligible because the senator's monthly salary, during the period of vacancy, is deposited into a special fund to offset the cost of holding a special election.
Marshall also questioned whether Democratic candidates competing for the Norfolk, Bristol and Middlesex county seat would have an advantage over Republican candidates, since voters not enrolled in either party account for a majority of the district's electorate.
"There is no reason to think that Republican-leaning unenrolled voters can't get out and vote on that day," Sacks said. According to the most recent election data, provided by Sacks, there are 59,380 unenrolled registered voters in the district, or 56.24 percent. Comparatively, there are 26,738 registered Democrats and 18,736 Republicans.
GOP Gov. Mitt Romney accused the Democratically-controlled Senate of "rigging" the election shortly after the election date was set in November. Romney has made it a top priority to win back Republican seats in the House and Senate during this year's election. Fourteen seats in the Senate are needed to sustain vetoes; Republicans currently hold only six.
"All we're looking for is a level playing field," said Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's director of communications. "If anything illustrates the pernicious effect that a one-party monopoly has on government, you need only look at the unfair tactics used by the Democrats to gain themselves an advantage in this case."
The state will hold the special primary election for the six Democratic candidates and two Republicans on Tuesday, Feb. 3. Vying for the Democratic nomination are Needham resident Richard W.
Gatto; Wellesley resident James F. Klocke; Sherborn resident Ronald C.
Lipof; Millis resident Angus G. McQuilken, and Needham resident Terence P. Noonan. Republicans in the hunt for the seat are current state Rep. Scott Brown (R-Wrentham) and North Attleborough resident Earl Henry
Sholley.
Return to
top
The MetroWest Daily News
Wednesday, January 7, 2003
Supreme Court to rule on special election date
By Michael Kunzelman, Staff Writer
Electing former state Sen. Cheryl Jacques' successor on the same day as the March 2 presidential primary is both "unfair and inappropriate," a lawyer for the Massachusetts Republican Party told the state's highest court yesterday.
"It may be unfair, but is it unconstitutional?" Chief Justice Margaret Marshall asked.
That's the question the SJC is expected to answer later this week.
The date of the special election favors the Democratic Party because a disproportionate number of Democrats are expected to vote that day, GOP attorney Roscoe Trimmier said during a hearing before the Supreme Judicial Court.
The Republicans, who are asking the court to order a new date for the election, claim the Democratic leaders of the Senate violated the state constitution when they scheduled the election before Jacques, a Needham Democrat, actually vacated the office.
Peter Sacks, a lawyer from Attorney General Thomas Reilly's office, denied the move was unconstitutional and rejected the GOP's allegation that the state Senate is trying to rig the outcome of the election.
"The Senate's order served two legitimate purposes: filling the vacancy earlier and saving public money," Sacks argued.
Piggybacking the special election on the presidential primary will not only save cities and towns an estimated $50,000, but it will ensure that the district's constituents are represented during the Senate's all-important budget debate this spring, Sacks argued.
Trimmier said it would not have hurt the residents of the Norfolk, Bristol and Middlesex District if the election was held in April instead of March.
"They ought not to be represented on the basis of an election that was ordered by an unconstitutional order and set on a date that is unfair and inappropriate," he said.
Jacques, who submitted her letter of resignation on Nov. 18, officially vacated her seat on Jan. 4. She left the Senate to serve as head of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights political group.
Sacks said there is nothing in the state constitution that requires the Senate to wait until Jacques leaves office before it scheduled the special election -- even if it worked to the Democrats' advantage.
"That's simply politics," he said. "There's simply no way to take that kind of political consideration out of the process."
Even if the number of Democrats voting on March 2 exceeds the Republican turnout, Sacks said unenrolled voters will play an even more critical role in the outcome of the election.
More than half of the voters in the Norfolk, Bristol and Middlesex District are
unenrolled, while 25 percent are registered Democrats and 17 percent are Republicans, according to Sacks.
"There's no reason to think that Republican-leaning unenrolled voters can't get out and vote on that day," he said.
Six Democrats and two Republicans are running for her seat and have qualified for the Feb. 3 primary ballot.
Because the secretary of state's office is printing the primary ballots next week, the SJC is expected to issue a ruling no later than Friday.
The district includes Millis, Sherborn, Wayland and parts of Natick, Franklin and Wellesley.
Return to
top
State House News Service
Wednesday, January 7, 2004
SJC upholds Senate election date, Romney & GOP rail against Democrats
By Amy Lambiaso
The state's high court ruled Wednesday that the Democrat-controlled Senate lawfully set a special election date on Super Tuesday, when Democrats are expected to flood polling stations. The ruling generated applause from the Upper Branch and complaints from the Corner Office.
The abbreviated ruling, which will be followed by an opinion from the Supreme Judicial Court, cements a March 2 special election date to fill the seat formerly held by Sen. Cheryl Jacques (D-Needham), who resigned to accept a gay and lesbian rights advocacy post in Washington D.C.
The court ruled that the Senate did not violate the Constitution by setting the election date before Jacques had actually left office. The date was set in November and Jacques resigned Jan. 4. The court's decision came 24 hours after judges heard oral arguments in the case.
At Logan Airport, where he touted the arrival of JetBlue air service, Romney responded to the ruling. "I think the SJC has to do what they can to interpret the law in the most appropriate way," Romney said.
He criticized the Democratic Party for taking "unnecessary" measures to protect its "supermajority" in the Legislature, and said he believes voters will start making strides to elect more Republicans. "In some respects I think there may well be some voters that say, you know - 'enough already,' " Romney said. "A majority is one thing, a supermajority is another."
"I think it's unfortunate that the Democratic leadership has chosen to try and tilt the playing field," Romney said. "Instead of having a fair election, to take a district, which is a Republican district, and then run the election on the day of the Democratic primary in an effort to try and avoid a fair and clean election - it's really unfortunate."
Republicans brought the lawsuit against the state shortly after the Senate adopted an order on Nov. 18 to hold the special election on March 2, the same date as the state's Democratic presidential primary. The Senate accepted Jacques' letter of resignation on Nov. 18, but she officially left office Jan. 4, 2004.
The party maintained that setting the election date prior to the senator leaving office violated the Constitution and a citizen's right to a "fair" election.
"Trying to change the rules of the game to favor oneself is just not called for," Romney said. "When one party so dominates the State House as they do, to have to fight to keep every additional seat, and through every means, fair and unfair, to try and slant the playing field - I think is unnecessary."
In its short ruling, the SJC determined that "the terms of the Constitution do not prohibit the Senate from acting to set the schedule for a special election to fill the vacancy in the Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex district, before the vacancy actually exists."
Senate President Robert Travaglini announced the ruling during Wednesday morning's formal Senate session. "There there," he said after reading the ruling. "It's a good way to start the year."
Travaglini released a formal statement later in the day.
"We are pleased that the court has seen through the political posturing of the Republican Party and allowed the Senate to secure representation for Senator Jacques' district as quickly as possible," Travaglini said. "This special election is not about Democrats and Republicans, it is about the people. The real winners in today's court decision are the people of this district."
The state's Democratic Party echoed Travaglini. The manner in which the election date was set was "not only fair, but constitutional," said the party's spokeswoman, Jane Lane.
"It's time for the governor to stop whining and start focusing on the issues that really matter," Lane said. "For the governor to go around claiming that we're trying to rig the election is very unbecoming on his part. These are not the issues that matter to the voters in this district."
Lane said the Democratic Party is pushing the six Democratic candidates in the race to maintain their focus on the issues throughout the campaign, not the "partisan whining."
In a statement released Wednesday afternoon, GOP Chairman Darrell Crate said Republicans knew this would be a tough battle to win, but pledged to work hard to win the March election.
"Legal play is not the same as fair play," Crate said. "Although the court has ruled that the Senate's action was constitutional, it doesn't mean they were right to set the election on March 2nd. The Democrats continue to use anything in their power to avoid a fair fight and honest debate over the issues. Republicans are used to uphill battles, and we will fight this one even harder, working to elect reformers like Scott Brown to change business as usual on Beacon Hill."
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
|