According to the State House News Service:
Sponsors of a constitutional amendment guaranteeing individuals the right to health insurance cleared all of their signature-gathering hurdles and won the first of two favorable votes (153-41) from the Legislature needed to place their amendment on the statewide ballot. But the Legislature, by adjourning a Constitutional Convention Jan. 2 without voting for a second time on the amendment, appears to have killed the proposal. The Legislature did vote 101 to 92 to keep the health care amendment, which needed only 50 votes to reach the ballot, bottled up in a special committee. The plaintiffs – noting that the convention, just before adjourning, had voted on a citizen-sponsored gay marriage amendment after the court ruled it had a constitutional duty to do so – are asking the SJC to order Secretary of State William Galvin to put the health care amendment on next year’s ballot.
I warn you, though, these live webcasts and archived web casts can be addictive. I am actually thinking of attending in person, but if I do not make it to the John Adams Court House, I will be watching and listening to that web cast.
But, frankly, if the legislature can just ignore initiatives, what is the point of them???
please let us know how many Voteonmarriage and process liberals types show up expressing ardent support of the same demand they made before the marriage vote: EVERY AMENDMENT MUS*T BE VOTED ON!!! I expect that they are so outraged at the marriage amendment getting a vote but the HCA not, that the place will be so packed with these folks that you won’t be able to elbow your way in. đŸ˜‰
<
p>
Signed,
Snarkilicious
Anyway, I provided the link so anyone who wants to observe “virtually” and avoid the “crush” of supporters can do so.
Funny if you’re not someone who respects both democratic governance and also the principle of equality. In that case, you were just lumped in with vitriolic bigots of the worst kind.
<
p>
I doubt that the Court will give them that remedy. I don’t think the Court will find that it has the power to put a question on the ballot. I think the most the Court will due is reiterate the view that the legislature should vote. The Court might rule that the petition is still before the legislature to be voted upon, but I doubt it will go even that far.
This case is no slam dunk for sure. But in months of research we have been unable to find, and the Attorney General’s brief certainly doesn’t cite, any case where once the SJC has emphatically stated the law they have failed to provide a remedy. And they certainly made it crystal clear that when it comes to initiative amendments, the Legislature must vote.
<
p>
Think of Clean Elections. The SJC was very clear that the Legislature had two options – repeal it or fund it. The Legislature refused to do either. The SJC authorized the plaintiffs in that case to sell state property to fund the Clean Elections law. Not exactly a timid response.
<
p>
Another more technical case deals with line item vetoes. Some years back the Legislature figured out they could enact laws as “outside” sections to the budget. They argued that since they weren’t line items, the Governor couldn’t veto them. Imagine, a way to enact anything you want without the check of a gubernatorial veto. The SJC said, “hold it”. This eliminated one of the key checks and balances in our government. The SJC filled a constitutional language gap and interpreted “outside” sections as line-items to effectuate the intent of the framers that the Governor be able to veto substantive laws.
<
p>
It will be interesting to see if the marriage ban folks attend the hearing. They have no dog in this fight. They were beaten fair and square through the hard work of equal marriage supporters lobbying their legislators until they had the votes they needed to kill the ban.
<
p>
The Health Care Amendment case is about accountable government. The initiative amendment process gives the People the power to lay amendments before the voters if they meet certain standards. We can agree or disagree about whether the People need or should have this power. But only the People can repeal it. A Legislature that feels free to repeal sections of the constitution and to ignore the SJC when at their whim is something we should all be concerned about.
<
p>
We’re used to thinking about President Bush as the president above the law. Its easy to attack illegal behavior also results in policies we abhor. The hard case is when doing one’s constitutional duty could result in something abhorrent. That’s the Marriage Ban situation.
<
p>
I would suggest that a Legislature that feels and is encouraged to feel that it is above the law is as likely to come back and bite us as it is to protect us. A robust SJC that provides meaningful remedies when fundamental rights are at stake is the only protection we have.
<
p>
Barbara Waters Roop, PhD, JD
Health Care for Massachusetts
An independent judiciary, that upholds constitutional rights, and protects against excess by the other two branches of government IS the only protection you and I have. In fact, a truly “independent judiciary” is one of the inventions I credit to John Adams…and difficult to maintain given the “whip” that comes from the legislative control over funding.
<
p>
An independent judiciary is also the only protection against the tyranny of the majority, when the majority becomes a mob.
…it seems to be that the remedy regarding the “clean elections” law is not a particularly good precedent.
<
p>
With “clean elections” the SJC approved a funding mechanism: sale of state government property. That might have been unusual, but it was not contrary to law.
<
p>
Both of the remedies that you are seeking are, indeed, contrary, not merely to law, but also to the state constitution. The state constitution requires that, before a constitutional amendment be placed on the ballot, it be approved by the ConCon in two consecutive sessions. That hasn’t happened. You might not like the way that that occurred, but that is a separate issue.
<
p>
–raj, BSEP (bachelor of science in engineering physics, EE minor), MS physics, JD, LLM.
<
p>
And taxpayer, who would vote against the proposal in any event, because it is so poorly drafted.
The SJC courageously enforced clean elections, and the Legislature cut the SJC and Appeals Court budgets – it is still below where it was prior to clean elections, to my understanding.
<
p>
Next, the legislature took the requested budget for the courts and cut it by 20% and then created the so-called “retained revenue” mechanism. Essentially, the courts were told to “make up the difference” by squeezing the rest of the money out of fees, such as the indigent counsel fee. See: http://www.bristolcp…
<
p>
Since that time, judicial promotions and assignments are greatly impacted by how good a collection agent a judge is – and the statistics are posted online each year.
<
p>
Despite the Wisconsin case holding use of indigent fees to fund court functions as unconstitutional, no one has had the temerity to take the legislature on about this – despite what a radical idea this is in reality.[the retained revenue as a means to fund mandated government functions].
<
p>
It is my opinion that the SJC will no longer tangle with the legislature about anything that involves use of the general fund revenue, or appropriations. SEE http://www.mma.org/i…
<
p>
It is my opinion that actual judicial independence has been severely undercut by Hancock.
I watched the oral arguments on the webcast. But once they finished, they just went on to the next case. When do the justices make a decision? What is the rest of the process for this case?
There is an online docket at the Supreme Court Web Site. Those interested will check this frequently. There WILL be a full bench decision issued, usually in three to six months, although sometimes a shorter or a longer time goes by. There will be discussions behind the scenes, and one justice and his/her staff will be assigned to write a draft decision. This will be circulated, and there will be discussion to see if all agree, or whether there will be a “main decision” and one or more dissents. I hope this is helpful.
<
p>
I know in Care and Protection of Sharlene and Lavallee, decisions came down quickly as there were emergency situations involved. This is not likely to be viewed as an emergency, so deliberations are not likely to be shortened.