Rep. Rushing has moved to adjourn the session to January, and has been seconded. There will be no debate; the roll-call is ongoing now.
UPDATE: A close vote in the Senate; Trav voted “no.” Now we wait for the House vote.
Please share widely!
Reality-based commentary on politics.
what? That we’d go through this again in January, or that this amendment is dead?
I think this has to pass this concon or it’s dead–2 consecutive legislatures, and the new will be in place in jan.
it has to be approved by this legislature. A new one will take office in Jan.
This has to be decided during this session or it’s dead. They could still reconvene this year. Romney could call them back into session, but he can’t make them vote on it.
<
p>
I’m not positive, but I’m pretty sure that the SJC has ruled in the past that the legislature can’t be forced to vote on constitutional ammendments.
… another amendment could (and would) be submitted next year though, right?
explain please? (newbie to Mass politics)
Far be it for me to guess at someone else’s thoughts… but the same thing can happen year after year after year… so, for people who oppose equality, it’s probably not worth their effort to keep bringing up these costly (and fraudulant) signature drives.
There are people with strong views and convictions and they’ll be back year after year with all the signatures they need.
<
p>
Same is true with the Healthcare, same with the Eminent domain.
<
p>
Your Reps put the tough amendments low on the list and break early for dinner: time for the weasel dance Am I wrong?
If it was a legislative amendment, the ConCon has no obligation whatsoever to vote it up or down.
so consistently resort to deception and outright lies to get signatures. If they don’t need to do so in order to get the requisite number, why do they do it regardless? It speaks very poorly of them.
So I shouldn’t care that people would try to break the law en masse to destroy my rights?
<
p>
No thanks. It wasn’t some trifle thing – and it’s not as if it got the attention it deserved. There should have been hearings on this, there should have been a massive media uproar. Nah, our country was too busy worrying about Britney Spears and “let the people vote” chants.
I am concerned with the civil rights of 170,000 people who have been denied the right to vote as laid out in their constitution.
<
p>
As it happens, I do NOT oppose gay marriage, but I will do everything in my power to see that this is brought back to the Legislature again.
<
p>
They’ve made me mad now.
Those 170,000 people do not have an automatic right to vote on the amendment they want, solely by virtue of having presented a petition with enough signatures. I’m sure that you actually understand this, and I know that you haven’t explicitly claimed otherwise, but the constant insistence that “the people have a right to vote” is misleading at best.
<
p>
The 170,000 people have a civil right to collect signatures and present a petition, and having done so they have a civil right to have the amendment considered at the ConCon. We can argue about whether it was sufficiently “considered,” and I actually tend to agree with you and sabutai that the way they handled it was not ideal, and may be counterproductive. But even if it’s sleight-of-hand, the use of procedural maneuvers to kill amendments is a legal and time-honored way to avoid troublesome issues, and if you’re mad about it, maybe you should advocate for changing the procedures.
<
p>
If the amendment did get a 25% “yes” vote at two successive ConCons, and then the Legislature pulled some stunt to keep it off the 2008 ballot, that would constitute denying the petitioners their civil rights. What they actually did was sneaky and might end up hurting the fight for equality, but it was also legal, and it didn’t deprive anyone of their rights.
Anyway, like I said, this thing’s still alive and can be finally resolved on Jan 2.
but that would require collecting petition signatures all over again from scratch, right?
And try for a vote in the next session (08-09) and the following session (09-10) which would put the measure on the ballot in 2010.
<
p>
Alternatively, they could go back to the legislature to try to get something passed there but that’s looking like a losing battle.
Next session is 07-08, not 08-09. I guess I’m just trying to skip next year for some reason.
The new session doesn’t start ’til the new legislature is sworn in on Jan 3.
<
p>
Without actually doing research, I thought that it was the opposite: They ruled that the leglislature must vote, in the context of the Clean Elections initiative. Finneran essentially told the SJC: “Bite me.” And nothing happened.
<
p>
I could be wrong, though.
It was Bulger, and the issue was term limits. The SJC found that the failure to vote was a violation of the Constitution, but declined to issue a writ of mandamus or other compulsory order.
or not made. Interesting stuff. So what’s next? Does this get reintroduced on January 2nd?
The Con Con was actually recessed until January 2nd 2007 NOT adjourned.
<
p>
The Governor can only call the Legislature back in if they adjourn, since they recessed he cannot call them back.
Did anyone not see this coming?
<
p>
And the first, post-election, chicks*** award goes to the lameduck weasels in the Senate/House. Can you think of any more descriptive animals?
<
p>
Weasel dance fever. Catch it. If there’s no January 2 vote, the signature gatherers will have 100,000 signatures by the end of February.