It has been some time since I wrote a diary, but right now in Massachusetts, there is a supreme judicial court case which is raising questions of both constitutional law and progressive politics. The story goes like this:
In MA, as many of you may know, there is a right-wing movement to place on the ballot a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. What you may not know is that there is a progressive movement to place on the ballot an amendment making affordable health care a right. Both amendments were killed through procedural means. To read about the ongoing struggles, see the flip.
In what has become a textbook case of politics making strange bedfellows, the health care amendment (hereinafter the HCA) advocates have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Judicial Court (the highest court in MA, hereinafter SJC) in the case filed by the anti gay marriage forces. They have also filed their own case. Essentially, both parties are seeking relief from the SJC in one form or another. The anti gay marriage group wants the court to force the legislature to reconvene and vote on the merits of the issue, and the HCA folks are asking the court to order the SoS to place their issue on the ballot, on the grounds that it received one affirmative vote already.
Some background on MA constitutional procedure: To pass a citizen's initiative amendment in MA, the initiative requires 65000 petition signers, 50 votes (out of 200) in the legislature for two consecutive sessions, and a popular vote. It's a strange system and in the minds of many is inadequate because it is relatively easy to get an amendment passed.
The lawsuits are based on the fact that in the past, the SJC has ruled that the legislature is required to take an up-or-down vote on the merits of the issue at hand. Unfortunately for the SJC, they have no enforcing power, and the legislature has simply disregarded their decision. Here, those who oppose gay marriage, and those who support universal health care (two largely different camps), are asking for a stronger remedy. Because the anti gay marriage group has never had a vote, they are only seeking that one be held. The HCA lobby is looking for a more expansive remedy. Because they had 150 votes in one session, and over 50 legislators voted not to kill the amendment with procedure, the HCA lobby is saying that evidence exists that the amendment would have passed its second vote, and are thus asking for a court order to place it on the ballot.
I'm torn on the issue. On the one hand, the anti gay marriage amendment is absolutely wrong, and I think most people here would agree with me. I would like nothing more than to see it fail. On the other hand, this case raises concerns about rule of law. It's pretty clear, based on past SJC decisions, that the legislature violated the law. If citizens allow this to happen, it sets a dangerous precedent. We may like it now that the legislature is violating the law to stop a bigoted amendment. My concern is when it happens to progressive amendments, we will lose the ability to argue for a rule of law solution.
Any thoughts?
(Full disclosure: I worked for a few months this summer with the HCA organization. I no longer do.)
If anyone is interested, this MA progressive politics blog is following the debate here
http://bluemassgroup.com/...