In the interest of keeping everyone informed about what’s going on, I pass along this tidbit from State House News:
In a decision handed down less than four hours after the hearing, Supreme Judicial Court Judith Cowin forwarded to the full seven-member court a lawsuit demanding that Senate President Robert Travaglini call a vote on a gay marriage ballot initiative or forcing Secretary of State William Galvin to put the amendment on the 2008 ballot. A hearing for arguments is set for December 20 at 9 am. In her decision, the plaintiffs, who include Gov. Mitt Romney and former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn, are required to submit briefs by Friday, December 8, and both the plaintiffs and defendants have to file an “agreed statement of facts” the same day. The defendants, represented by the attorney general’s office, have their brief due on Monday, December 18. At the hearing before Cowin this morning, both sides said they were willing to go before the full court, but differed on the timing. The plaintiffs want action before January 1, a day before the Legislature resumes its Constitutional Convention, while the defendants preferred sometime next spring. “The defendants have no objection to such an approach and are willing to begin working with plaintiffs on a statement of agreed facts and an agreed-upon briefing schedule allowing argument to the full Court sometime in the Spring of 2007,” Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks yesterday wrote in a letter to the SJC. Story Developing
UPDATE (by David): The AG’s office is arguing that the claims against Trav (requiring the joint session to do something) should be dismissed based on the term limits case, and is suggesting that an expedited schedule is unnecessary, since if the only relief on the table is to advance the amendment directly to the ballot, that only has to be resolved before the fall of 2008, so there’s plenty of time. Here’s part of the letter, which was filed yesterday:
As counsel for the defendants in the above-captioned matter, I write in advance of tomorrow’s scheduled hearing to call the Court’s attention to the decision in LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31 (1992) which is dispositive of plaintiff’s claims herein against the defendant President of the Senate and which makes expedited proceedings on those claims unnecessary.
Also, for you law junkies, you can follow the progress of the health care amendment suit here.
Kai, thanks for the update.
Does anyone know the status of the lawsuit filed by the Committee for Health Care for Massachusetts on November 10 relating to the health care amendment? Have arguements been heard in that case?
<
p>
I haven’t heard anything more about that case, and it strikes me as a bit odd that the hearing for the suit filed by Romney and others (in their individual capacities) on November 24 seems to have been heard before the health care lawsuit.
According to the SJC website, the Health Care Committee’s lawsuit included a letter to the clerk of court stating:
<
p>
I guess that is consistent with the relief the Health Care Committee is seeking, which is to order the Secretary of the Commonwealth to put the health care amendment on the if the joint session fails to take final action approving or disapproving the amendment.
The reason the gay marriage suit will be argued right away is that they are asking the SJC to order Travaglini to have an up or down vote on the ban amendment on January 2nd.
<
p>
Our position is that no one’s rights have been violated yet since the ConCon still in theory can vote on the matters before it. Prior cases have been very clear that the SJC is unwilling to step in when it doesn’t have to – and it certainly doesn’t have to until after January 2nd.
<
p>
Needless to say, we’ll be very interested in the SJC’s opinion. If they do order a vote on January 2nd – which would require overturning previous cases – it might persuade the ConCon to give the Health Care Amendment its vote. It also might signal that the SJC would be open to the 2008 ballot remedy, at least in the case of the health care amendment which already has one vote and evidence that if a vote were taken there are 50 “yeas” to put it on the ballot.
<
p>
Someone’s going to be getting a holiday present. The question is who?
<
p>
Barbara Waters Roop, PhD, JD, Co-Chair
Health Care Amendment Campaign
Many times as I read about my own interests in gay marriage and the equality it brings, I see the question of Health care pop up. I run livelovelearn247.blogspot.com, and I help with knowthyneighbor.org. I am all for this health care ammendment, and I was wondering why no organized effort to reach out to the gay community for support in this matter? It seems that we both have causes that are not opposed to one another, so why not help each other? I don’t think the legislators are going to vote on either this time around, but if your ammendment were to be deferred to committee until after the new representatives take office, wouldn’t that save your bill? They could then take it up without it being killed in the same manner that they are trying to kill the anti-equality ammendment. I am not schooled in law, I only hear what is being kicked around by friends who pretend to know. Your thoughts?
such a compromise is not possible. If the health care amendment is not voted on in this session, it is dead, despite having gotten the signatures it needed and well over the votes it needed last session. Nothing carries over from one two-year legislative session into the next.
I believe there is still hope. My understanding of Robert’s Rules of Order is rusty, but can’t a motion be made to change the order of the agenda to bring this health care ammendment forward as the first item of business? Then they could vote on it, and still adjourn on the issue of gay marriage. I am wrong?
What I’m unclear on is whether unanimous consent is needed for that motion to pass (of course they wouldn’t get it), or whether it’s a majority or 2/3 or something.
I am not sure who to ask, and I suspect that Peter Porcupine or someone else who is uber-active on this blog will have found the answer and posted it before I can. The question is what’s the procedure to move an item up the list on the ConCon agenda? Anyone? How many votes does it take? I believe the health care ammendment should not be killed simply because it is behind the gay marriage ammendment, and I think most people agree with that. Let’s get the word out to those that can make a difference, and get some answers. This is the type of team work Deval Patrick’s campaign calls for, and it is good government to help one another where we do not disagree.
Your suggestion is AN EFFECTIVE STRATEGY TACTIC and one that requires many persistent calls to legislators and to Sen. Prez Trav’s legal staff, and maybe a little media attention to it as well would make a world of difference in actually getting a straight answer. YOur suggestion has given me the inspiration to pickup the phone and dial:
<
p>
<
p>
I haven’t been able to get an answer to this question from my own leges. What I get is this reply: “It’s up to leadership”. I was even given that same line by Sen. Moore, co-chair of the HC Finance cmte and co-chair of the special “Study cmte” for the HC amendment, for crimminy’s sake! (At the recent amercian public health association mtg in Boston I had a chance to chat with Mr. Moore.)
<
p>
Why won’t my leges give me a straight answer? Maybe ‘cuz the leges don’t even know themselves and/or don’t want to know. Their inquiring might be perceived as “bucking the leadership”. Heaven forbid they act on behalf of constituents if it means bucking both leadership and the health industry power brokers in the state…
<
p>
But multiple persistent calls cannot be ignored forever, especially if the media gets on this one.
…that the majority of the legis just doesn’t want to vote on the HC amendment. otherwise, they’d have been jockeying to move around the order of events and not giving nebulous answers about how to do that. could this be a fair assessment? if there are 50 but not many more votes to move the amendment forward, the will/interest simply isn’t there? if this is the case, the simple majority is deliberately killing the HC amendment along with the anti-gay marriage amendment. and, dare i venture to suggest, allowing pro-gay forces to take the brunt for the slick move so some of them don’t have to?
I reliable source just got back to me, and unfortunetly the agenda move requires a unanimous vote to accomplish at this stage.
<
p>
What I was told is that, “Barbara Roop should approach various legislators about filing this as a bill for a Legislative Constitutional Amendment. This needs to be done before next January 10.” With 153 votes last time around there is a majority vote present able to put this on the 2008 ballot yet.
<
p>
Again, this is a very reliable source that wishes not to be named. There is more than one way to get this done, here is another solution.
that my impression was not a very good one. i didn’t realize that it passed so overshelmingly last year.
Your last comment is exhibit A on why I love these internet tubes and blogs like this one.
<
p>
Is there anything us ordinary citizens can do to promote your suggestion? I care about the right to same-sex marriage, but I also care about health care and I want to be able to see a vote as well.
There are some powerful lobbying groups out there that you could read about on their websites, and participate in their lobbying efforts. I only spend the time I can afford to on what interests me, but I have gotten the word out as an individual too.
<
p>
Check out: MassEquality.org, knowthyneighbor.org, queertoday.com, and my little rant livelovelearn247.blogspot.com
<
p>
Also for the health care issues that I only recently got involved in, check out Ann’s site: defendhealth.org
<
p>
I am sure there are going to be lots of people at the state house on January 2, 2007. If you can come to the event in person to show your support all are welcome, but if you can’t there other other ways you can help by contacting your legislators directly. Massequality has there site set up so it addresses the letter for you to your specific representatives once you put in your address.
<
p>
The other thing you can do is speak your mind with people you know. Word travels fast and makes a difference. My sincere thanks for your warm regards!
The procedural hurdles to getting a vote are very high.
<
p>
First, unless the Health Care Amendment is reported out of its “study committee” it can’t be voted on. There are two ways to get it out of committee:
<
p>
<
p>
Unless the Amendment gets out of committee no amount of procedural maneuvering can produce an up or down vote.
<
p>
If it’s reported out then we can look at the options for getting it moved up on the Calendar. It’s now last. As I understand it it takes unanimous consent to drop items at the front of the Calendar to the back. Freakishly, it takes a 2/3 roll call vote to move it from the back to the front. Not easy either way.
<
p>
Odds are that it will only pop out of committee if enough arms and legs are broken to ensure its defeat. It’s possible, but our supporters have been very courageous over the past three years taking tough votes and a lot of heat. Never was it clearer than last July when it took almost two hours of arm breaking to get the majority needed to send the Amendment to committee. The 76 members who opposed that motion stood very, very tall that day and we owe them our thanks.
<
p>
In response to an earlier suggestion about refiling as a Legislative Amendment for the next Session, we have considered and still are considering that option. But the political reality is that the Amendment was sent to its “study coffin” because it had too much support both among the members and the public. Powerful forces don’t want it voted on because they know there are enough votes and because if it gets on the ballot it will likely win. (A poll taken just before the July ConCon showed 76% popular support for the Amendment.) They don’t want to embarrass themselves by running campaigns against a right to health care coverage – particularly since many of the Amendment’s oponents profess to be strong supporters of this year’s legislative reforms which promise affordable, near universal coverage. Their only option is to keep it off the ballot.
<
p>
This political dynamic won’t change if we refile it as a legislative amendment. It’s hard to predict exactly what might happen but it would not likely come up for a vote before Spring 2008. By then this year’s reforms will, according to the projections of the conference committee that reported the bill, be running huge deficits. Further reforms will be needed to cut – not shift – costs to make coverage affordable and sustainable. The Amendment requires this because you can’t have affordable and equitable coverage without it. That’s the sticking point. Everyone’s for more access as long as we keep pouring more money into the already bloated health care system. None of the big interests is much intersted in serious discussions about diets. That is the real lesson of this year’s reforms and that’s what’s killing the Health Care Amendment.
<
p>
If you want to help, call your legislators and tell them you want a vote on the Health Care Amendment and you want them to vote YES because you want this year’s reforms to be fully implemented and the job finished by getting the waste out of the health care system so universal coverage can truly be affordable and sustainable.
<
p>
I’ve mentioned before that we commissioned a study that showed how to save over $2 billion every year from state health care programs. That is almost ten times the expected Chapter 58 deficit in 2009. It is enough to pay for the fanciest health care expansion in the world, with plenty left over to increase local aid and education funding and more besides. If those same savings strategies are applied system wide there are billions more in savings.
<
p>
If you want your share of the savings call your legislators and tell them. 617-722-2000 and if you’re not sure who your legislators are check it out at http://www.wheredoivotema.com
<
p>
Thank you.
<
p>
Barbara Waters Roop, PhD, JD, Co-Chair
Health Care Consitutitonal Amendment Campaign
Barbara, then my impression above actually was partially correct. There are, at least, individuals in power in the legislature who do not want to see the HC amendment voted on.
<
p>
This being so, I hope the pro-procedure people around here who have been sore at the tactics used to by pro-equality forces to kill the anti-equality amendment will take a deep breath and realize that we are not to blame for the death of the HC amendment. The legislature is. Or certain elements in the legislature, anyway. While I am sad to see the HC amendment go down, I and delighted to learn that the handling of the virulent anti-gay, anti-equality, andti-marriage amendment really had nothing to do with it.
It’s really the HC amendment that killed the marriage amendment, not the other way around. As far as blame goes, what’s going to happen is that the VoteOnMarriage “bigots” are going to be blamed for the HC amendment going down. “We had to stop it, and that was the only way,” they’ll all say. But we know that is a lie. They don’t need to stop the marriage amendment this year, they can stop it next year. So it realliy is the MassEquality side and the Boston Globe that are colluding with the legislature to kill the HC amendment. Don’t blame the marriage amendment.
and they said so in a staff editorial. Specifically, they said “Legislators should not violate the constitution in order to protect it.”
Well, that’s what they say in their edicorial, just like153 members are going to say they would have voted for HC rights. My point about collusion was that the Globe is not going to report that the marriage amendment can be killed next year, so they can vote on it to get to the health care amendment. The Globe, if they write about the HC amendment dying at all, is going to report it as though it’s all the bigots fault, if they hadn’t tried to put such a virulent question on the amendment, they would have been able to approve HC.
<
p>
But now that there is a slim chance that the court might vote to put them on the ballot without a vote (it would pretty much have to rule the same way on both of these suits, right?), the gay rights side should be more worried about that possibililty than the chance that they won’t be able to kill it next year.
I am coming into this fight in it’s eleventh hour, so all I can do is follow someone’s lead. It seems you have a firm grasp on what options you have, so there is nothing that has been missed, right? If that’s true all that’s left is to organise the supporters we can to contact the legislators. What needs to be said, and where can we go to make sure we are fully educated on this subject before we call?