“Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”
–Abraham Lincoln
Last week, two Teachers of the Year, a nationally known education consultant, the president of the Massachusetts PTA, and the Massachusetts Teachers Association challenged the constitutionality of a controversial ballot initiative.
While the media characterized the lawsuit as a fight between teacher unions and Stand for Children, most of the professional education associations in the Commonwealth oppose the initiative. But politics and policy aside, the issues outlined in the suit are both constitutionally legitimate and significant.
Although Supreme Court decisions at the federal level are regularly reported on, we are much less likely to hear about such decisions at the state level. But much like the federal Supreme Court, Massachusetts’ supreme judicial court is the final arbiter of cases involving the Massachusetts Constitution. Like the federal Constitution, the state constitution forms the basis of our state government. It is grants authority to and balances the power of our legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.
Ballot initiatives are discussed in Amendment 48 of the constitution. In addition to authorizing the right of people to submit their own laws or constitutional amendments directly to voters, this amendment also prohibits initiatives that relate to the rights we associate with the U.S. Constitution such as freedom of speech and religion and protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The amendment also prohibits tinkering with the balance of powers laid out in the constitution. It expressly proscribes any “law that relates to… the appointment, qualification, tenure, removal or compensation of judges; or to the powers, creation or abolition of courts…” in ballot initiatives. “The limitations on the legislative power of the [state legislature] in the constitution shall extend to the legislative power of the people as exercised hereunder.” These exclusions protect the state constitution from being rewritten by plebiscite. According to plaintiffs, Stand for Children’s initiative grants expanded powers to the courts in the arbitration process.
Another constitutional requirement for ballot initiatives is that a “fair, concise summary” be produced for voters. Voters can’t be expected to read and understand the Massachusetts General Laws, and for that reason, the Attorney General’s office is charged with producing a useful summary. The plaintiffs charge that the AG’s office has failed to produce an intelligible 4-page summary as required by law. This failure provides another basis for the lawsuit.
Yet another reason for the legal challenge to Stand for Children’s ballot initiative is that it includes parts that are “not related… or mutually dependent.” In other words, it’s okay (it may even be necessary) for an initiative to include multiple parts that are required to implement a single law, but petitioners are not allowed to sneak in multiple, unrelated changes into a single initiative. This clause protects voters from being fooled into supporting a initiative that contains hidden provisions. According to the lawsuit, this initiative has “eleven separate sections that amend and/or repeal numerous provisions of two comprehensive statutes in conceptually unrelated areas.” There are, as MTA President Paul Toner has said, “too many moving parts.”
Granted, the legal significance of this lawsuit is hard for the average news outlet to understand and cover. And that’s probably why the media focused, not on the legalities of the suit, but on its political aspects. I’m sure ballot initiatives have been challenged in court, and some have certainly been dismissed for unconstitutionality, but this lawsuit is about more than teacher evaluations or politics, it’s a matter of protecting and preserving the process.
…sounds like an awfully subjective term, so I’m not sure a suit on that objection can go very far. This is, however, yet another argument against having popular enactment of laws, period. We have legislators for a reason, namely so THEY can research and understand all the ramifications of a proposed law, and this is a prime example.
forces a judgment call by the judiciary. That’s how the law works. It will be up to attorneys for both sides to present arguments and precedents and so on. I wish I knew more about making legal arguments, but I think I gave the gist of what’s at stake and how it’s at stake.
Ballot questions should be simple enough to understand and debate. As MTA President Paul Toner has said, “This is not a simple yes or no ballot question, like asking whether you should pay an extra nickel on a bottle return. There are so many moving parts to this initiative that no voter will be able to understand it in a short period of time.’’
If the people are to be sovereign, they have to be able to know what they are voting on.
The Mass. Constitution requires transparency. No surprises in hidden baroque legislative language that only make themselves known after the referendum is held. No fog of words that lets well-funded proponents get away with false claims about what the law says or would do.
We have judges for a reason too.
They certainly have. One recent example was when an early version of the ban on dog racing was deemed unconstitutional because it violated the “no unrelated provisions” rule. In so doing, the court adopted a very strict approach to the “relatedness” test, so the plaintiffs may have a good argument here.