Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Republicans file suit over Senate appointment; reveal misunderstanding about what a “referendum” is

By

Here’s one of the complaint’s central allegations:

The law, as signed, cannot be subject to a referendum petition or request for suspension.

It can’t?  That’s odd — I thought that pretty much all laws enacted by the legislature could be the subject of a referendum.  Could you elaborate?

According to the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s web site, submission of original petitions to Attorney General to originate an initiative petition for a constitutional amendment were due August 5, 2009.  That date has passed, and with a special election slated for January 19, 2010 a referendum cannot be had.

Huh?  What does the deadline for an initiative petition have to do with this?  This is about a referendum, an entirely different … ooooohhh, I think I see the problem: the MA GOP does not realize what the difference between an referendum and an initiative is.

Just to clarify: an initiative is how the people can enact a new law (or a constitutional amendment).  A referendum is completely different: it is a mechanism by which the people can vote thumbs-up or thumbs-down on a law that the legislature has already enacted.  And, crucially, the referendum process is actually very much available in the case of the interim Senator law.  Here’s the MA Constitution (Article 48):

A referendum petition may ask for a referendum to the people upon any law enacted by the general court which is not herein expressly excluded…. A petition asking for a referendum on a law, and requesting that the operation of such law be suspended, shall first be signed by ten qualified voters and shall then be filed with the secretary of the commonwealth not later than thirty days after the law that is the subject of the petition has become law.

The initiative deadlines are completely irrelevant to the referendum.  The deadlines for a referendum are determined by when the law in question was enacted; first, 30 days from enactment for 10 signatures, and then 60 more days to gather several thousand more.  Then, if they get the signatures, the law is suspended* and an up-or-down vote goes to the people at the next state election.

So come on, Mass. GOP — don’t go crying to the courts (they’re not going to listen anyway).  If you don’t like this law, get out there and gather signatures for a real referendum on it!

—–

*This gets a bit complicated: if enough signatures are filed within 90 days of the law’s enactment, the law is suspended until the election unless the law has been declared an emergency law by the legislature or the Governor.  In either of those cases, the law stays in effect, but the referendum vote still goes ahead at the next election.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. This certainly makes an easy two (Franken, Kirk).  Are there others?

    <

    p>”Activist judges!  Tort Reform!” is muttered from one side of their mouths while trying to undermine representative democracy using the courts with the other.

    • Sen Gore …  as President.  The GOP interceded in the vote recount with a lawsuit which was appealed up to the Supreme Court.

      <

      p>


      After the election, USA Today, The Miami Herald, and Knight Ridder commissioned accounting firm BDO Seidman to count undervotes, that is, ballots which did not register any vote when counted by machine. BDO Seidman’s results, reported in USA Today, show that under the strictest standard, where only a cleanly punched ballot with a fully removed chad was counted, Gore won by three votes. Under all other standards, Bush won, with Bush’s margin increasing as looser standards were used.

      <

      p>

      A nationwide December 14-21, 2000 Harris poll asked “If everyone who tried to vote in Florida had their votes counted for the candidate who they thought they were voting for — with no misleading ballots and infallible voting machines — who do you think would have won the election, George W. Bush or Al Gore?”. The results were 49% for Gore and 40% for Bush.link

  2. According to Open Secrets, that’s the lobbying firm that Hartford Insurance hired.  As a well compensated member of the Hartford Board, Kirk should be able to explain what Holland & Knight is lobbying for.  Are they, and Hartford Insurance pushing for a strong public option?
      Maybe the answer will be reassuring. But the list of Holland & Knight’s other clients is anything but reassuring.

    • Start your own diary on Kirk and Holland & Knight, and I’m sure someone would be happy to have a thoughtful discussion about it with you. (Since you’re new here, I figured I’d give you a helpful suggestion about how this place works.)

  4. a temporary restraining order to stop the process until the legal proceeding is completed?  

    <

    p>No such restraining order was granted.

    <

    p>I think that gives us a hint as to the merits of the case.

  5. What, exactly, could the judge enjoin? According to the Globe, Kirk is on his way to Washington with the official appointment papers in hand. Gov. Patrick has already appointed him. The case is moot. (Contrast the case in Minnesota, where the governor did not certify the election until court challenges were over).

    <

    p>TedF

    • It might not play well to people that understand such issues, but most of the folks this is aimed at don’t care.

      <

      p>The “discussion” at RMG is pretty informative.  EaBo has front paged a half dozen diaries on the subject and Mihos has issued an anti-Deval screed.

      <

      p>A couple of example comments should give you the feel:

      <

      p>

      An utterly disgraceful and dishonest abuse of the law and process. I have never witnessed anything like this, nor do I think we’ve had a more offensive display of heavy handed and corrupt manipulation of laws.

      <

      p>

      Let’s just hope that this judge isn’t one of the ones that was found to have donated to Deval Patrick’s campaign in illegal amounts.

      Dear God, can we find one honest elected official in this whole cesspool of a state?

        • BTW – since Mihos is running AGAINST Deval – you expected compliments?  Or will Deval not campaign against HIM?

          <

          p>I thought Mihos was running FOR Mihos and FOR the office, no?    The Governors shortcomings aren’t any reason whatsoever to default to Mihos, nor anybody else. Mr. Mihos is perfectly free to lay out the case for his candidacy without ever once referencing anybody else. Politics isn’t required to be about cutting down the other guy, no matter how much you might get off on that…

          <

          p>It’s, also, always very interesting to see how people use last and first names… It’s ‘Baker’, ‘Mihos’, etc… but ‘Deval’ for the Governor.  It suggests a familiarity that’s not there…

          • I think the reason is that he’s Deval Patrick.  If he was Francis Washington we’d call him Washington.  In our particular society, at this particular point and time, “Patrick” is not sufficiently unique, and is typically a first name.  “Deval” on the other hand is rather unique for either a first or a last name.

            <

            p>So, “Deval” is the shortest way to be clear about the subject, Governor Deval Patrick.

            <

            p>

            <

            p>My preference is the longer “Governor Patrick,” though like all writing, one never always chooses the word automobile nor always chooses the word car.

    • he’s being sworn in at 3:30 pm; the judge hearing the case says he’ll rule by noon.  I suppose that if the judge ruled that the appointment were illegal, they could delay the swearing-in.

      <

      p>Not that any of that is going to happen.

  6. From Amendment 48:

    <

    p>

    II. Emergency Measures.

    A law declared to be an emergency law shall contain a preamble setting forth the facts constituting the emergency, and shall contain the statement that such law is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety or convenience. [A separate vote shall be taken on the preamble by call of the yeas and nays, which shall be recorded, and unless the preamble is adopted by two-thirds of the members of each house voting thereon, the law shall not be an emergency law; but] if the governor, at any time before the election at which it is to be submitted to the people on referendum, files with the secretary of the commonwealth a statement declaring that in his opinion the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety or convenience requires that such law should take effect forthwith and that it is an emergency law and setting forth the facts constituting the emergency, then such law, if not previously suspended as hereinafter provided, shall take effect without suspension, or if such law has been so suspended such suspension shall thereupon terminate and such law shall thereupon take effect: but no grant of any franchise or amendment thereof, or renewal or extension thereof for more than one year shall be declared to be an emergency law. [See Amendments, Art. LXVII.]

    <

    p>From Amendment 67:

    <

    p>

    Article LXVII. Article XLVIII of the Amendments to the Constitution is hereby amended by striking out, in that part entitled “II. Emergency Measures”, under the heading “The Referendum”, the words “A separate vote shall be taken on the preamble by call of the yeas and nays, which shall be recorded, and unless the preamble is adopted by two-thirds of the members of each House voting thereon, the law shall not be an emergency law; but” and substituting the following: — A separate vote, which shall be recorded, shall be taken on the preamble, and unless the preamble is adopted by two-thirds of the members of each House voting thereon, the law shall not be an emergency law. Upon the request of two members of the Senate or of five members of the House of Representatives, the vote on the preamble in such branch shall be taken by call of the yeas and nays.

    <

    p>Seems to me that if 2/3 of each chamber declare an emergency, then it is.  Apparently even the Governor can declare it such.  With “convenience” being one of the standards, it seems pretty wide open to me.

Archives