Below is a
sample letter that was mailed Friday
morning, overnight express
delivery, to their homes. Fourteen were deemed by the
USPS as "undeliverable," and those members
were e-mailed individually over this weekend.
-- A Sample
Letter --
CITIZENS
for
Limited Taxation
PO Box 1147
9
Marblehead,
Massachusetts 01945
9 ***@cltg.org 9
www.clt.org
Barbara Anderson (508) 384-0100 9
Chip Ford (781) 631-6842 9
Chip Faulkner (508) 384-0100
December 29, 2006
Representative Salvatore F. DiMasi, Esq.
220 Commercial Street
Boston, MA 02109
Dear Representative DiMasi,
When you became a lawyer you took an
oath that stated: "I, Salvatore F. DiMasi, do solemnly
swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and will support the
Constitution thereof. So help me God."
Now the SJC has ruled in Doyle v.
Secretary of the Commonwealth that, without
qualification, the Legislature has a duty under the
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to
vote by the yeas and nays on the merits of the
initiative amendment declaring that marriage is the
union of one man and one woman. This means you cannot
close the last scheduled session of the Legislature on
January 2, 2007 without taking up this issue.
Here is what the Court said on this
point:
"The members of the joint session
have a constitutional duty to vote, by the yeas and
nays, on the merits of all pending initiative amendments
before recessing on January 2, 2007 . . . the language
of art. 48 is not ambiguous."
"Even counsel conceded at oral
argument that it would have been inconceivable to the
drafters of art. 48 that the Legislature would refuse to
comply with its obligation to vote on a pending
amendment that had been introduced by the initiative
process. Yet, that is precisely what could happen on
January 2, 2007, should a majority of the members of the
joint session vote to recess without first taking a roll
call vote on the merits of the initiative amendment."
"Today's discussion and holding on
the meaning of the duty lays any doubt to rest. The
members of the General Court are the people's elected
representatives, and each one of them has taken an oath
to uphold the Constitution of the Commonwealth. Those
members who now seek to avoid their lawful obligations,
by a vote to recess without a roll call vote by yeas and
nays on the merits of the initiative amendment (or by
other procedural vote of similar consequence),
ultimately will have to answer to the people who elected
them."
The SJC has declared that the
Constitution of Massachusetts provides that all members
of the Legislature have a duty to vote by the yeas and
nays on the merits of the initiative amendment. The SJC
says that this is your "lawful obligation."
Although the SJC was responding on
the marriage issue, the same duty applies to any
initiative amendment, including the "health care for
Massachusetts" amendment that awaits its second
Constitutional Convention vote on Tuesday.
As members of the Legislature who are
also lawyers, you twice took an oath to uphold the
Constitution of Massachusetts. You break that oath
if you now wrongfully avoid your unequivocally declared
duty under the Constitution to vote by the yeas and nays
on the merits of the initiative amendment.
The Rules of Professional Conduct
promulgated by the SJC, and which govern the conduct of
all lawyers in Massachusetts, provide at section 8.4(h)
that "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . .
. engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on
his or her fitness to practice law." Comment no. 3 to
this Rule states: "Lawyers holding public office assume
legal responsibilities going beyond those of other
citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest
an inability to fulfill the professional role of a
lawyer."
You have a declared duty under the
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to
vote by the yeas and nays on the initiative amendment at
the further joint session of the Legislature scheduled
for January 2, 2007. You took an oath as an attorney to
uphold the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. You have a "lawful obligation" to vote by
the yeas and nays on the merits. Your wrongful failure
to vote by the yeas and nays would be a violation of
your oath as an attorney, a violation of your lawful
obligation under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and a violation of your professional
obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct.
I have signed neither petition and
have no position yet on either, though I have signed on
to the "health care for Massachusetts" lawsuit that is
similar to the one filed by "defense of marriage"
petitioners. My abiding interest is the defense of
Article 48. Therefore please be on notice that I and
others who respect the state constitution will bring any
wrongful failure of yours to vote by the yeas and nays
on the initiative amendment to the attention of the
Board of Bar Overseers and ask that appropriate action
be taken against you.
Sincerely,
Barbara Anderson
Executive Director
Citizens for Limited Taxation
– 30 –