My Facebook feed lit up today with news that the Supreme Judicial Court got out ahead of the legislature and reduced signature requirements by 50% and delayed the deadline a bit. They sided with plaintiffs arguing the regular requirements constitute an unconstitutional burden at this time. While I completely understand the logic on the merits and supported a DSC resolution calling for legislative action on this matter I don’t think it is the court’s role absent a law to back it up to just come in and make this change. Seems to be the very definition of legislating from the bench and “it’s not fair” or “”it’s too hard” doesn’t strike me as sound legal reasoning.
Please share widely!
I understand the argument and am not unsympathetic either. But in this case it’s not “too hard” or “unfair,” it’s “unconstitutional.”
That’s what the court is supposed to do.
Doesn’t look as though there were any dissenting justices on this one.
Now, what about those referendum petitions?
Justice Gants’s opinion is certainly reasonable in the circumstances on the merits, but when a court rules something unconstitutional they should be able to point to a specific clause and say this law violates this provision. Plaintiffs should have taken it up with the legislature. I can only see a court case if there were different rules for different candidates.
Unfortunately the right to vote is in neither the federal nor state constitutions. This seems like a clear 14th amendment issue to me, but I have a much better expansive view of the scope of that amendment than most legal scholars.
14th amendment calls for EQUAL protection of the laws, and as far as I can tell the circumstances make it equally difficult for all candidates.
A bit easier for incumbents (and very well-heeled challengers) I should say.
Yes, the same standards apply to all, but it’s like the way the law forbids both rich and poor from sleeping under bridges.
So much for the reassurance you got as an insider that the Legislature was going to act responsibly and address ballot access. As I suspected, they flirted with it, but found it was not in their interest and decided to screw democracy. Fortunately, the court’s offered relief.
So much for “showing grace” in a situation like this, which you urged me to do when I predicted something like this was going to happen.
Last I knew it was still moving.
In answer to come comments above – the SJC did reference the constitutional provision at issue – Article 9 of the MA Declaration of Rights – which has in past cases referenced constitutional rights and access to the ballot (e.g. right to collection signatures in “private” shopping centers, rights of third parties to ballot, etc).
It is also of note that this is an essentially unanimous opinion (there is one concurruing opinion which supports the main opinion but expresses concerns about electronic submission issues) – from a SJC mostly appointed by Republicans and full of ex-prosecutors who tend to be somewhat caution about constitutional interpretation
Again that speaks to equality, which nobody was being denied.