The fact is, the founders of our country put up a high bar for amending the constitution – both the federal one and those in the states. If it’s a simple matter to amend the highest legal document in the land, then the document has very little meaning. Now, this high bar meant a harder fight for civil rights, suffrage, and the like, but it also means that once a right becomes enshrined in the Constitution, it’s harder to rescind too. But if the document changed every generation or less, going back and forth on a single issue several times, not only would that become a legal mess, but those rights would not be held sacred.
One of the amendments the ConCon is considering today got there by citizen petition. Anti-equality idiots on the fringe of Massachusetts society, along with their allies from out of state, bought their way into the process – literally. They paid people to amass enough signatures to get this petition, and achieved their goal (throw enough money and manpower to the problem, and it’s pretty easy).
Because this heinous anti-gay amendment is going through, as I understand it, the ballot initiative process, the bar is lowered for getting it onto the ballot for a vote by the public. It will amend the Massachusetts Constitution, but it only needs 50 of the 200 state legislators’ votes in two subsequent ConCons. Not 2/3 of a yea vote. Not even a simple majority. Twenty-five percent. That’s it – and then a simple majority of the voting public.
That bar is far too low. I insist that we fix this loophole NOW. It doesn’t belong in the process. That’s partly why I support the parliamentary procedure the legislature may try to use to kill the amendment before it ever gets a vote in ConCon. It shouldn’t be up there in that form in the first place.
I propose that the procedure be thus: if we must retain the ballot initiative process (and can we examine that too?), that process cannot be used for amending the state constitution. Or, if it can be used to propose an amendment, it must have the same bar as for any other constitutional amendment, which is, correct me if I’m wrong, a 2/3 vote in two subsequent ConCons before appearing before the public for a simple majority vote. No more special interest money using the ballot initiative process to attempt to dilute the constitutional amendment procedure from here on out.
Perhaps Governor-elect Patrick can propose this in his first six months of office?
The bar is so low because so many signatures were collected.
<
p>
I want this process open to me so that when there’s an issue the legislature refuses to move on, we still have recourse. Just because the amendment is bad doesn’t mean the process is.
Votes in two ConCons followed by a referendum. It’s a pretty good process, especially compared to those of some other states.
<
p>
While I would prefer a constitutional provision against any changes that remove rights from broad classes of people (how would you word that one, do you think?), giving access to this process by initiative petition as we do is a good idea.
It’s easy to spend money to hire people no matter how fringe the idea is, or delicate the issue is (like, say, interracial marriage and women’s right to vote). And it’s not too hard to find in many cases 50 legislators who tend to the fringe on that issue.
<
p>
Maybe we should still have the ability to propose an amendment via signature drives, but why should that make it easier to pass? It should still require the 2/3 or 3/4 (someone told me a little while ago it’s 3/4) that any other amendment needs to pass the ConCon?
Get it on the ballot to begin with?
Putting it on the ballot, before it was legal, would have been devisive and doomed to failure. It was an orchestrated strategy to go through the courts to get our first, basic rights as gay citizens.
<
p>
Now that we have it, people don’t mind it, so it would probably stick around even if this goes to the ballot… but 3 or 4 years ago is a completely different story.
The signatures were collected fraudulantly. One of things I remember about this petition is that a good portion of these signatures were obtained via fraud. I for one was on the list of people who supposedly sign the petition. And I for one know I never signed the petition.
<
p>
What the people who were collecting there signatures did was they made you think you were signing a petitition for the recent question #1 that was on the ballot but in reality you where signing the anti gay marriage proposition.
<
p>
I am against writing any form of discrimination in to the consititution and would of never signed this petition. I am glad that some of my friends and family member will be able to get some of the same rights my wife and I have.
<
p>
This should not even be in today’s convention and I support any measure to kill this ever getting on the ballot.
<
p>
One other thing as to why this does not belong on a ballot. This is a civil matter and civil matter are handled in the court system and the highest court in this state has already made a decision.
<
p>
If these people who are against gays getting married then do not let them get married in your church but let them have the same civil rights that we all enjoy.
I’m of two minds on putting the equality question on the ballot. On one hand, I completely agree that putting human rights to a vote is ridiculous. We should all have equal protection and equal rights.
<
p>
The other side of me says that, especially in light of the Patrick/Murray landslide, we could beat this thing once and for all if it comes up for a vote. If that was the case would that settle it once and for all (something I’m in favor of) or would it just come up again and again by anti-equality forces trying to motivate their base?
<
p>
To add to my brain freeze there is the skeptical side of me that thinks that so many people are feeling that they aren’t effected by this issue that they will tune out and not vote, thereby giving the homo-bigots a better chance of succeeding.
<
p>
Okay, I guess I’m of three minds on this subject. Hence, brain still hurts.
In many of the same ways. I tried to explain that to a friend and covolunteer on the Patrick campaign this morning who is in a single sex marriage. Honestly she got a bit upset with me, which I can understand. I too thing we can beat this thing and want to come up with a clean way to kill this once and for all without setting the precedence of putting civil rights to a popular vote. I really do not know what the best way to deal with this would be.
Any amendment if the loophole gets closed WOULD get on the ballot – IF it passes the 3/4s of legislators twice.
Never, never.
<
p>
The election of a pro-choice President (Clinton) was not enough to stop them from trying to write laws invading a woman’s autonomy.
<
p>
The popular defeat of a that crazy South Dakota law will not stop them.
<
p>
Nosy busybodies who want to infringe on other people’s rights will use any excuse to do so–and when one excuse gets undercut, they grasp for another.
<
p>
The defeat by a vote in the Legislature will not discourage them any more than defeat by a parliamentary procedure.
<
p>
And since speed of punishment is often more effective than severity of punishment, I would argue that the fastest way to stop these busybodies (i.e. a parliamentary move) is the better way.
<
p>
We can’t ease the “grievance” in the twisted minds of these busybodies, so we should at least follow that path that causes the least difficulty for us.
What baffles me is why the legislature votes as one unit rather than each chamber having to pass a measure. The senate is almost disenfranchised. It’s bizarre that even if the senators unanimously disapproved an amendment, it could pass with either 32% or 63% of the house vote (depending on who initiated it). The senate should have a greater role in safeguarding our Constitution.
<
p> – Dan
Anything to do with amending the Constitution (I believe both on a state level and federal?) is done in a big usually-once-a-year Convention.
I know that’s the rule. I want to know why the rule was written that way, in contrast to federal rules and I believe in most states. US amendments need a 2/3 majority from the House AND a 2/3 majority from the Senate.
<
p> – Dan
I knew that once, but it’s been a long time since my (lamely-taught) civics class…
such that a simple majority vote can amend a constitution. My guess is that when the constitution was written the process of gathering that many signatures seemed sufficiently onerous that it would be the needed barrier. Now enter paid signature gathering and that throws the wohle thing out of whack. It seems like a ridiculous process, but the horse is out of the barn, because it would take a constitutionsl amendment to change it, and if that comes up by referendum rather than initiative the bar is much higher. I think it requires 2/3 by the legislature and then I can’t remember if it is 2/3 by the voters or 60% or just a majority. So the public would have to vote to take this power away from themselves. Not so likely. I plan to talk with Senator Ed Augustus, a great guy on all accounts, who is the chair of the Election Law Committee, to see what options there are to straighten out this flaw in our constitutional makeup. I’ll report back after I do that.
It was most likely a progressive reform that took place in the early 1900s. Anyone know?
Is what I’ve heard, but I can’t say with any degree of certainty.
History of I&R in MA here
<
blockquote>the legislature will vote up or down on the gay marriage amendments before them, or parlimentarily kill the stupid things once and for all.
<
p>
The outcome today will NOT kill it once and for all any more than Birmingham’s stalling did. The 10,000 signatures are EASIER to get as more people get annoyed about not being ALLOWED to vote.
<
p>
Frost – did you PROTEST your fraudulent signature? This petition has had more sunshine than any petition ever has because of Know thy Neighbor – did you speak out then?
<
p>
Dan – It is a joint vote because our constiution requires a joint session for any amendment. It would have been even worse before the size of the House was cut as far as the Senate being outnumbered goes!
<
p>
Margot – No majority – simple or super – can change the constitution. Only the electorate can do that.
<
p>
This will never go away – please, have a vote while you still have some good will.
even if we have a vote, will it ever go away? If we vote and it is defeated will that be the end of it? I doubt it. The proponents of the ammendment will find some other way to bring it back up. I honestly don’t see this ever ending no matter what so a vote, which seems silly to me, will just confirm the idea that we can vote on people’s civil rights, which I think is wrong. If you could present me with the reasoning for how any process will end the debate, I would be interested in hearing it, but as of now I do not see how that can happen.
I did protest the fact my signature was on the petition but Mr. Reilly certified the petition anyway even with all the fraud that had been talked about.
<
p>
I for one am not scared of a vote on the amendment. I know for sure it will go down to defeat badly but I do agree the process is wrong. To amend the consititution by petition should take more then just a certain # of signatures and a vote that needs only a quarter of the state house twice to be put on the ballot. It should reuqire at least a simple majority.
how many signatures were fraudulent?
They had to sign an affadavit to get their names off (through KnowThyNeighbor.org). I think they were stopped to sign a petition outside of Target in Somerville (to do with wine and beer sales in supermarkets). They were furious to say the least.
How many people signed their buddy’s name, just so that their buddy would “find” his name on it and claim fraud? Some state just examine a small sample, and if too many of the signatures are bad, throw the whole thing out, so people scuttle petitions by signing bogus names.
<
p>
We certainly do need to have clearer petitions, so you can see the language clearly directly above or below the space to sign. It is strange that the petitions are so cryptic, sometimes forcing you to turn them over to see what you are signing. That could have happened to your parents, or perhaps someone could have signed your parents names? It’s quite a coincidence that people smart enough to go to knowthyneighbor are the same people dumb enough to not check carefully, even given how hard it is to see what you’re signing. And it would be quite a coincidence that someone wanted to fill their petition with fake names and somehow chose people who just happened to check knowtheyneighbor. Surely most people in the state didn’t check knowtheyneighbor.
<
p>
The point is how many of the signatures weren’t fraudulent. Did enough people actually sign it to meet the requirement? In this case, yes, by more than double.
<
p>
As to the low threshold, the idea is that citizens can bypass a tyrannic majority in the legislature by showing that there is public support. If it could get support of a majority, there would be no need to get signatures, they’d put it on the ballot for their own pleasure. If the proposed amendment is terrible or irresponsible, it won’t get 25% to get on the ballot at all. That’s what would happen if there was an initiative for women to walk around naked all the time, or for free beer. They’d reject those (i think).
65,825 were required, 170,000 signatures were submitted
That’s the answer: allow ballot initiatives, but require 3/4s of the vote in parliament. After that, I still think it would be better to require 3/4s when on the ballot too, but I’d allow that to go either way.
<
p>
I know sco thinks that it’s important to have an easy process to advance issues the legislature won’t – but that’s wrong when it comes to the constitution. I’m fine with making it somewhat easy to get questions on the ballot (while I’m not fond of that practice, I think it’s important that it exist as a sort of legislative check).
<
p>
The point is it should be damn near impossible to change the Constitution – that way when it is changed, it’s changed for an IMPORTANT reason. Everything else should be done through new laws.
<
p>
The constitution, in my mind, is important for two basic reasons: to secure basic rights and to make the process work. Everything else should be left to the legislature.
It’s still not easy. While the 1/4 of two consecutive legislatures might seem easy, don’t forget there’s still the signature collection and the final statewide vote.
<
p>
It’s a three-year minimum process. I don’t think I would characterize it as “easy”.
And the signature thing, all you gotta do is throw (out-of-state) money at the problem. That bar is too low.
<
p>
If you were forced by law to find VOLUNTEERS you didn’t PAY to get the signatures, now that would be something!
It would not have mattered. The antis would have gotten their signatures with or without paid gatherers. The institutional support from the Church, among other groups, all but assured that.
As it is, they cheated thousands of people to get on the ballot through fraud – including commenters on this very website.
<
p>
They were bought and paid for, cheated… and you think it would have happened anyway? Lots of people have tried – and failed – to collect enough signatures to get on the ballot. You’re totally wrong about this and not defending your position well.
I think you are still right, they could have come up with the signatures. But I’ve been surprised (pleasantly) at how weak the anti-marriage crowd has been, and how little traction their crusade is getting generally in Massachusetts.
<
p>
Where were the slates of anti-marriage candidates for the Legislature? (Granted these candidates would have called themselves something else.) Where was it in Tuesday’s election?
<
p>
Just maybe, they would have fallen short.
<
p>
On the other hand: if they had been prohibited from paying for signatures, and instead had ramped up a grass-roots organization, might not the anti-marriage issue be more of a force to be reckoned with?
<
p>
So everyone, be careful what you wish for!
The weakness of the anti-marriage forces is despite a massive campaign by Sean O’Malley and others to raise an army. I think bringing in the paid gatherers was already plan B.
<
p> – Dan
How about this for a people’s petition. How about a law to forbid the collection of signatures within 50 ft. of a place of worship.
<
p>
Jeez.
Getting the signatures is a cinch – it just requires about a hundred thousand bucks, maybe more. Anyone can buy their way onto the ballot.
<
p>
The final statewide vote, while harder, still isn’t easy. It only requires a majority, not a super majority. Even today, the support for equality in marriage is around 55% ish. Surely, 6% of the vote can be swayed with enough ads and dough poured into Massachusetts.
<
p>
Finally, just because it takes some time doesn’t mean it isn’t too easy. Learning how to drive was easy, even if I couldn’t do it for slightly more than six months after I was first allowed behind the wheel.
…but don’t doubt their sincerity. These altar guild ladies will collect signatures – gratis – as long as they have a church.
<
p>
Mocking and sneering never changed a mind, and accusing them of widespread fraud just stiffens their resolve to force a vote.
The fraud was caught ON CAMERA. There were thousands of people.
<
p>
Sometimes the truth hurts. Those signatures should have all been thrown out.
<
p>
Plus, if church ladies were collecting sigantures “gratis,” why bother spending over a hundred thousand dollars paying people to collect the signatures per signature? The answer: there isn’t the institutional support. Old ladies can want to collect them all they want, but without forming an official group, working together and knowing the process it’s useless.
<
p>
That’s why out of state money and organizers are here trying to do the work for those old ladies, hoping they’ll be the ones to vote against equality IF they can get it on the ballot.
People didn’t want to be screamed at and argued with, the signature blockers were too difficult to deal with for lots of people. And people were afraid of being intimidated by their angry neighbors, or kicked out of their job like happened on the Cape, so they didn’t want to sign or collect signatures. So that’s why they hired that out-of-state company to gather signatures, and had to pay them more than normal, because they took so much abuse. And that lent itself to some signature gatherers cheating to get more of the high paying signatures.
But don’t balem that turn of events on the VoteOnMarriage people, if there wasn’t intimidation and screaming blockers and knowthyneighbor goons, then it would have been easy to get enough signatures without any paid gatherers.
Lynne, a legislatively initiated constitutional amendment requires a majority of two consecutive joint sessions of the Leg. to go to the ballot, not a 2/3 supermajority. The three-year process makes it deliberative, but the simple majority doesn’t seem like that high of a bar.
I keep hearing 3/4. Though 1/2 is STILL a lot more than 25%.
<
p>
OK, someone whose wonkery surpasses mine: what the hell are all the actual procedures in MA for amending the consitution?
…the first was the original Travis Super-DOMA, which the supporters had Travis file. THAT needed the higher number of votes to pass.
<
p>
After Finneran and Birmingham castrated it (supporter’s words), they went with the simple citizen petition, which needs only the 50 votes.
<
p>
Originally, they had foolishly believed that having a legislator sponsor the petion was a good thing, when all it did was trigger the higher threshhold and allow it to be modified.
We can do this by petition.
<
p>
Why would voters go for it?
<
p>
Simple. It ends the endless rerun of Groundhog Day with the same fringe campaigns that we’ve been subjected to over and over and over. It saves money. It makes the process more uniform. And it lets us move on to more important things.
<
p>
I think this may be doable.
Generally I hate to interrupt, but I wanted to get this comment in at some point.
<
p>
I find your argument against ballot initiatives to be almost self-contradictory. Your opinion is that the popularly elected legislature is more capable of determining, rationally and rightly, the best policy option available than the people. That because legislators sole purpose is to educate themselves on policy, and have access to resources for that purpose that are beyond the reach of the average citizen, it is better for them to be making policy decisions; however, you admit that it is the responsibility of the voter to elect quality legislators. That the voters rationality leads them to evaluate candidates positions and performance to choose the most ideal legislator. In order to proper evaluate a legislator, a voter would need to educated on the multitude of issues that a legislator would have to, or, in the case of an incumbent, has been charged with resolving. In order to determine the rightness of a policy stance, or an analysis of committee hearing, a voter would have to be familiar not only with substantive policy issues, but also various logical argument and counterarguments. Looking at economic issues, a voter would have to survey the economic landscape and determine which causal factors are responsible for the situation; they would have use past experience and available information to determine which policies were best for that environment, and which candidates policies and past voting record were most adept at remedying potential problems. In order to vote for the most capable candidate, a voter would need familiarity with issues to a degree similar to that of a legislator. This is not to say that I believe the average voter is rational, dispassionate, and well informed; I simply suggest that the necessary preconditions for a people to elect competent legislators are the same as for people to make rational and reasonably well-informed policy decisions. I believe that voters may rely to much on personal prejudice and emotion in the voting booth (see: Neil Postman), but that this process does not yield the rational and capable legislators you seem to think it does. Yes, there are capable people in the state house, who consider issues in an intellectually honest fashion, but it would be a mistake to say they are the norm. For the purpose of this argument, I will ignore issues of miserable turnout in local elections that make the rise and dominance of factions a viable threat. Even if we had decent turnout, for the state to have a respectable legislature, wed need respectable voters, and those voters should be of weighing the merits and demerits of a particular initiative. Whether there is a respectable electorate in Massachusetts is debatable (although, I do think the Patrick election certain tilts the odds in favor of the peoples intelligence), but it seems that if you hold that the people are capable of electing representatives, they should then be able to consider an individual law when then deem it attention worthy.
I know I do not have the capacity to get informed enough on every ballot question to vote responsibly. I am an incredibly informed voter – I spent hours reading and writing on the issues. Ergo, it’s the dumbest idea in the world to give me, and others like me and others far less interested in minutia, direct control over laws. Period.
<
p>
I guess it boils down to this: having an electorate micro-manage lawmaking is not a practical solution for governing.
<
p>
However, we all have a general idea how much we like or dislike our legislators. For instance, I know I disagree terribly with Sen. Panagiotakos on the gay marriage issue, but I’ve looked at some of his other voting history and his way of using inclusive democracy (most of the time) to decide to vote for him. Doesn’t mean if someone better came along in a primary I wouldn’t want him unseated, but I am relatively content with his tenure.
<
p>
Not so much with some of our Reps. I KNOW which Reps I wanna see ousted. I have a general idea, both because of Mass Scorecard and other sources, that they are not who I want representing Lowell. I can then make my decisions accordingly.
<
p>
But Panagiotakos is on the Higher Ed committee. He’s (hopefully) sitting there sifting through data that would make my eyeballs pop. He might make decisions I disagree with, but he’s far more informed on that issue than I. If he ceases to be useful on his committees, it WILL show through. His voting history will allow voters to know if he’s representing their best interests or not.
<
p>
It’s getting that voting history to the people that has been hard, because our media sucks so very badly. That’s what blogs are for!