Citizens for Limited Taxation & Government
18 Tremont Street #608 * Boston, MA 02108
Phone: (617) 248-0022 * E-Mail: cltg@cltg.org
Visit our web-page at: http://cltg.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------

*** CLT&G Alert ***
Wednesday, May 7, 1997

"By their deeds we shall know them"

Greeting folks;

[There’s so much happening all around us that it’s getting hard to keep up with it. This morning Barbara and I discussed just how much to put out to you folks here, how much you’d want to read. Bottom line, we decided, is: It’s our job to keep you informed; it’s yours to decide how informed you wish to be— so we’re giving you everything we think you should know to be prepared, and you’ve got your delete key if it’s too much.
Sound fair?]

Term Limits is in trouble, now that it’s before the state Supreme Judicial (Kangaroo) Court. Arguments were heard by the SJC yesterday. Opponents, the League of Women Voters, the state Democratic Party, the ACLU, and three legislators, weren’t questioned by any of the justices; only the defenders—which, by the way, means the Attorney General’s office. Seasoned observers seem to think, from the direction of questioning by justices (and I use that word with reservations), it’s a done deal—Term Limits just hasn’t laid down and stopped breathing yet.

The Massachusetts state supreme court has for a long time been recognized around the country as one of the most politically motivated in the nation. Recall some examples:

· We’re only too aware of how it ruled—actually, failed to rule and by its silence let stand—on Secretary of State William Galvin’s unconstitutional refusal to issue to us our payraise repeal petitions.

· Recall that in 1993 the SJC refused to order the

Legislature to take a vote (up or down, but take the constitutionally mandated vote) on the Term Limits constitutional amendment for which LIMITS and we gathered signatures.

· Whether or not you think them guilty (and personally I don’t) the SJC recently ruled that, though aspects of the Amirault trial were "clearly unconstitutional," the guilty verdict shall stand, for "the public has a right to closure." Could this decision have anything to do with the fact that Attorney General L. Scott Harshbarger was the prosecuting Middlesex County District Attorney in the original case thirteen years ago, and that current DA Tom Reilly was then Harshbarger’s First Assistant DA?

[Yesterday, Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Robert A.Barton stepped down from presiding over the bail revocation hearing of 74-year old Violet Amirault and her 39-year old daughter, Cheryl, after releasing them from prison in 1995 based on their trial being clearly unconstitutional a decade ago.

Before walking off the bench in protest, Judge Barton, known as "Black Bart" for his stern sentences, stated: "I maintain that whether it results in the death penalty or one day in jail, a trial proceeding must be constitutionally correct. Though I was not affirmed by the SJC, I believe that I am right: These women did not receive a fair trial, and justice was not done."

I wonder if he’ll be nominated for the JFK "Profiles in Courage" aware next year? More likely it will be someone like the judge who refused to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed by another judge in a courtroom within his jurisdiction.]

· In our April 28 Update, I alerted you to the automatic Judicial payraise legislation the SJC has filed and remains with the Legislature, as well as the $685 million courthouse bond bill the Legislature apparently is holding hostage.

So which do you think will come first to the Beacon Hill Cabal: A big fat payraise and more unaccountability (if that’s even possible) for "the most politically motivated state supreme court in the nation," or the death sentence for Term Limits?

Chip Ford
Co-director

Yesterday the Joint (House and Senate) Committee on Taxation held its hearing on tax cuts. Barbara testified— surprise! -- in favor of cutting taxes and pretty much read the committee the riot act, in her usual nice way. In response, members of the committee lit into her for her lack of respect and due obsequiousness before the committee. It turned into a memorable enough exchange that the State House News Service this morning noted:

At this morning’s hearing of the Taxation Committee on income-tax bills, the governor keyed in on two tax cuts he included in his budget for this year. . .

Numerous lawmakers rose to support tax credits for groups: parents who adopt, families whose children must pay user fees in order to participate in after-school activities, and homeowners whose septic systems flunk the Title V assessment.

Citizens for Limited Taxation [& Government]’s Barbara Anderson supported all those credits, but in addition to a larger goal. Anderson and Sen. Robert Hedlund (R-Weymouth) filed a bill reducing the state’s income tax to 5 percent from the existing 5.95 percent.

Anderson lambasted the Legislature for its failure to cut taxes despite the state’s burgeoning economy, saying, "Massachusetts has the highest income tax in the nation. Our state surplus is piling up.... There is no reason for the state to have a savings account. It’s our money."

And, much to the immediate ire of the committee, she added, "I look forward to seeing it on the ballot."

Both Senate Chairman Warren Tolman (D-Watertown) and House Vice-chair Rep. William Greene (D-Billerica) said they considered Anderson’s reference to a ballot referendum a "threat" to the Legislature.

"I personally don’t appreciate the insulting tone you use whenever you testify here... I do not appreciate your demeanor and I do not appreciate your threat," said Greene. He wondered how she expected to accomplish her goals when "you constantly berate the Legislature."

Gee whiz, Barbara—how many times must I remind you to first kiss their rings!