I’d like to point out to the rest of the state how the state’s constitution is being used to promote misinformation against Democrats.
Last week, an article appeared on Masslive.com, allegedly the largest newspaper website in the state, based in Springfield. The headline was this:
New bill would ban the sale and distribution of all balloons in Massachusetts, add fine up to $100
It outlined how State Rep. Sarah Peake filed a bill to ban the sale and distribution of helium balloons. (Masslive corrected its blatantly incorrect headline, but not until two days later). No quote from Peake was included – the only quote was a bizarre one from the person who runs Springfield’s Parade of the Big Balloons, saying “a ban would impact the upcoming Parade of the Big Balloons following Thanksgiving, but that the show would go on.”
Of course, the reaction was predictable. Complete outrage over “those DemocRATS”, who were against freedom, trying to pry balloons out of everyone’s hands. The post garnered hundreds of comments, almost unanimously against the ban, but also railing on Democrats.
Turns out though, that Peake filed the bill because she was constitutionally required to do so. Someone read the article and called her office in outrage, and was told by a staffer that she filed it on behalf of a third-grade class. Massachusetts is the only state in the union where citizens are granted the Right to Free Petition, whereby they are allowed to file pieces of legislation for consideration. The article on Masslive did not report that this particular bill was citizen sponsored.
So here we are, a week later, and readers today are greeted with this click-bait headline:
This bill would make it illegal to call someone a b—- in Massachusetts
Again, the outrage was predictable. Hundreds of comments decrying the proposed bill, and screaming about Democrats. And again, someone called the state legislator in outrage (“Daniel Hunt, a Democrat representing Suffolk’s 13th district”), and was told that the bill was also filed on behalf of a constituent.
This article is a bit more puzzling though. Again, the journalist did not contact Rep. Hunt for comment, but the article did reference the MassGOP Twitter feed, which mockingly tied this bill to “Democrats”.
Which leads me to wonder: could Massachusetts Republicans be weaponizing this process? At the very least, they seem to be highlighting citizen-sponsored legislation as Democratic in nature (since most districts are represented by Democrats). Might they be phoning in these tips for articles?
If the news media can’t be bothered to understand the Right to Free Petition issue – or more likely, the news media enjoys the clicks tied to the ginned-up controversy – then doesn’t this create a potentially bad situation? Wouldn’t it be possible for a challenger (or their supporter) to file a bill to, say, eliminate the penalty for pedophilia, or some other outrageous thing? The representative would be required to file it, the challenger would then send an “anonymous tip” to the press, they report it, and the incumbent takes a huge hit in credibility.
While I’m not advocating that we change the state constitution, at the very least the head of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, and perhaps someone from Robert DeLeo’s office, should pick up the phone and call the editors of Masslive and other media outlets, and let them know that they are absolutely mischaracterizing what is happening, and are perhaps being played by the Massachusetts GOP.
These should be clearly labelled as citizen petitions rather than listing the filer as the sponsor. I know we have a long-standing tradition of filing on behalf of constituents, but I do not read the right of petition in the MA Constitution as requiring the filing any more than the federal right to petition. Surely if I were a legislator I would not file something I could not do so in good conscience.
I am afraid that both Rep Peake and nopolitician misunderstand the Constitutional guarantee of the right of free petition to the legislature. Any citizen is allowed to directly petition the legislature by filing proposed legislation with the Clerk of the House. The petition remains in the hands of the Clerk with a docket number until any member of the House signs on to it, at which point it is given a bill number and is sent to the floor of the house for assignment to a committee.
It is a commonly misunderstood process and in thirty years in and around Beacon Hill I only met one legislator who knew the process. Most legislators mistakenly think they are obliged to file any bill offered by a constituent. If the subject is in strong violation of the legislator’s values, they tell the petitioner to go away, the law be damned (even though there is no obligation). I remember in either 1988 or 1990 when the militantly anti-choice Rep Kevin Poirier filed legislation on behalf of a constituent that would create a death penalty for abortion providers. It was too extreme even for him but he filed it under duress.
Here is the passage from the state constitution, Article XIX of Part the First:
Wouldn’t refusing to file such a petition violate the constitutional rights of the people?
That language is ultimately no stronger nor more specific than the federal constitutional right of the “the people…to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances”. Nowhere does this clause say a legislator must file or sponsor a specific legislative request. John Adams tended to be verbose. They have a right to instruct or request without fear of legal penalty, but not a guarantee that such requests or instructions be acted upon.
Fair enough, but if this is a misconception, it is far and wide. The Massachusetts State Library states this:
Massachusetts is the only state in the country that gives its citizens the right to file bills directly in its state legislature.
The Massachusetts Bar says similar things:
Have your state legislator call the Clerk and ask. As I previously noted, after 30 years around Beacon Hill I only met one legislator who knew the process. So ask the definitive voice on the matter.
Yes, it is widely misunderstood. But the citizen files the petition with the House Clerk if the legislator will not file it.
I’m open to the possibility that a legislator is not required to file the legislation – but from a broader perspective, characterizing citizen-generated legislation as “belonging” to the filing legislator will dramatically alter the process.
Each legislator has his or her own priorities when it comes to filing/sponsoring legislation.
Each has his or her own conscience as to whether a piece of legislation is worthy of debate.
Each will have his or her own position when it comes to voting on certain pieces of legislation.
If the standard is to publicly “tie” citizen-sponsored legislation to the representative who signed it for his or her constituent, then it stands to reason that every representative should refuse to sign onto citizen-sponsored legislation unless it is legislation that he or she would have prioritized and sponsored anyway,
That means the citizen-sponsored legislative process is no longer a reality.
By the way, the national conservative media has picked up on this “story”, and is using it to claim that Democrats want to throw people in jail for calling someone a “bitch”.
I also want to observe that all election campaigns are inevitably cult like. It is one of the things I do not care for about them. People choose sides and then double down. In 6 months BMG will be split into armed camps each denouncing the others as Russian stooges or worse..
Seems a bit silly to pick out a few Bernie types for this dynamic,
ehhh wrong thread?
This is such an important post. The key is hidden in the title and at the end. Because the Massachusetts Constitution requires the filing of citizen petitions like this one to the General Court (the formal name of the legislature here for anyone reading this out of state), this distortion could be used as fake news on important matters in the future.
As discussed below, even if the word “requires” is technically incorrect, this is still a potential area for media mischief and error.
My apologies for mistakenly giving a thumbs up on the original post. It is factually incorrect and from it the author jumps to some pretty outlandish conclusions.
It is entirely understandable that Rep Hunt misunderstands the right of free petition. It is not taught in the freshman orientation program (I participated in a few orientations over the years, which are hosted by the Clerks of both chambers and involve legislators, their staff and outside lobbyists).. Few legislators bother to learn the either the House, Senate or Joint Rules. Fewer still understand the Constitutional provisions on legislative mechanisms. And nobody except one or two nerds and hard-asses read the hundreds of years of Rulings of the Chair.
Finally, if anybody knows how I can delete my thumbs up on the OP, please let me know. Muito obrigado!