CLT
UPDATE
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Going for the kill of petitioning in
Massachusetts
As conservative groups launch a drive for a
referendum to ban same-sex marriage, Beacon Hill Democrats are moving
swiftly to pass a bill that would make it more difficult for such a
question or any other to reach the state election ballot.
The bill, which could be voted on in the Senate as early as next week,
is provoking an outcry from government watchdogs, the administration of
Governor Mitt Romney, and Secretary of State William F. Galvin, among
others....
Massachusetts is already viewed as a difficult state in which to pass
laws through ballot referendums....
In addition, courts in Massachusetts have strictly interpreted the
requirements for ballot access, sometimes throwing out signatures based
on stray pen marks.
The new legislation, originally filed by Senator Stanley C. Rosenberg,
Democrat of Amherst, has been submitted in various forms for several
years, but has never made headway. This year, however, the Joint
Committee on Election Laws, under new leadership, is expected to vote in
favor of the bill Monday....
The bill has the strong backing of gay marriage proponents,
but they adamantly rejected any suggestion that the bill is aimed at the
proposed 2008 same-sex marriage ban. It is also backed by the League of Women
Voters, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, and MassVOTE ...
Same-sex marriage "allies want to use this bill to keep the anti-gay-marriage
petitioners from getting signatures this fall," said Barbara Anderson of
Citizens for Limited Taxation, among several groups opposing the bill.
"This Election Laws bill is a weak and phony front for hatred of the petition
process that brings issues into the public arena for debate. The gay marriage
issue, and all issues, would be better served by both sides expressing
confidence in their position and trusting themselves to sell it to the voters,
instead of expending resources preventing the campaign debate and driving a
stake through the heart of the last best vox populi."
The legislation would essentially kill the initiative process in Massachusetts,
Anderson said.
Several watchdog groups, including Common Cause and the Massachusetts Public
Interest Research Group, say the bill would create new obstacles in a process
already regarded as the toughest in the nation.
The Boston Globe
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Ballot initiative limits sought
Gay marriage foes seen as target
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
They're going for the kill of the initiative and
referendum in Massachusetts, likely next week in the Senate.
CLT's associate director, Chip Faulkner, testified
against this bill earlier this year, and was verbally assaulted by some
on the committee.
They've always detested the constitutional ability of the unwashed
masses, from time to time when nothing else worked, to end-run the
hoi-polloi and powers-that-be; for us peons to make our
own laws, repeal bad ones imposed upon us, on our own.
This has been just too much for them to bear, too
much for them to permit to continue -- especially in today's political
climate of reelection invulnerability and one-party domination.
Starting with state Sen. Stanley Rosenberg's 2002
proposed
constitutional amendment to kill the I&R process, CLT and other
grassroots groups across the political spectrum have been battling to
keep the last best hope of the citizens of Massachusetts alive, standing
in front of the bullet that will bring it down. But the
powers-that-be have kept firing away, and their ammunition is limitless.
Always in the name of "good government," the liars
and would-be tyrants keep marching forward, determined to stomp and
crush everything and everyone in their path beneath their boots.
Make no mistake about it: THIS IS WAR.
If they are, one way or another, able to take away
our constitutional right to petition, they will attain all power to
govern -- have ripped away the final fig leaf of real democracy still
covering us.
If this latest assault is successful they will have
won it all -- stolen our right, made a joke out of "the consent of the
governed." And will they ever have the last laugh!
While the Democrat from Amherst played around with
idea of statutes similar to this bill, Sen. Rosenberg's more ambitious proposed constitutional amendment to
gut Article 48 of the state Constitution -- the Initiative and
Referendum -- if adopted by the Legislature, at least would have had to
go to the voters on the ballot. For it to take effect, a majority of
voters would then have to vote away their rights.
This insidious attack instead will simply need
a majority in the Legislature to kill the right of the people --
by making the rules and requirements to comply impossible to ever meet.
Can you imagine the chilling effect on signing a
petition -- if you know your name and address will be immediately
posted, that wild-eyed opponents will begin harassment of you as soon as
they get their corrupt hands on The List, publicly disclosed by
this proposed law?
If you somehow need a further wake-up call, remember
what we personally experienced with out first tax rollback petition in
1998. (See: CLT Update, Apr. 7, 1998 -- "The
Harassment Continues" and CLT News Release, Apr. 7, 1998 -- "Teachers
Union Bullies, Harasses Elderly, Others")
Then recognize one of the advocates of this latest
assault on democracy, Arline Isaacson -- in 1998 the chief lobbyist for
the Massachusetts Teachers Association and its intrusive and despicable
outrage during its scorched-earth legal challenge of all our signatures.
After months in court, MTA and TEAM ("Tax Everything And More") defeated
us by 26 signatures out of the tens of thousands they pored over, one
by one. Issacson is now the chief advocate for gay marriage -- but
she claims, with a straight face, "This has nothing to do with the
gay community and everything to do with honest government and reforming
a process."
Do you believe Issacson is interested in "honest
government and reforming a process" -- or killing that which for so
long she has detested, getting her hands on another list of citizens having
the temerity to sign a petition with which she disagrees so she can
again ravage and intimidate them?
The teachers union and TEAM even went so far as to
subpoena senior citizens from across the state to appear in superior
court in Cambridge -- talk about a hardship as a result of simply
signing a petition in Fall River or Springfield -- telling the
unfortunate target "This subpoena was issued by Barbara Anderson because
..." (See: CLT News Advisory, Apr. 13, 1998 -- "Those
Subpoenas Are Not Ours!")
Do you believe the "protections" against citizen
harassment included in
this bill will be enforced -- even can be enforced?
When the liars intimidated senior citizens and others during the 1998
challenge of our signatures, nobody could even identify the
menacing voice on the phone (who claimed to be calling for "Barbara
Anderson"), let alone prosecute them; of course abundant denials were
cavalierly tossed out like confetti, and accepted.
This is not a skirmish. THIS IS WAR -- ALL OUT WAR!
If we don't prevail, it'll be time to call a moving
company and make reservations while you still can.
You MUST call your state senator the first
thing Monday morning and demand in no uncertain terms that he or
she vote to save the initiative and referendum process, the voice of the
citizens. Tell them to KILL THIS BILL -- and accept nothing
less
from them.
You can find your state senator by clicking
HERE.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Globe
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Ballot initiative limits sought
Gay marriage foes seen as target
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff
As conservative groups launch a drive for a referendum to ban same-sex
marriage, Beacon Hill Democrats are moving swiftly to pass a bill that
would make it more difficult for such a question or any other to reach
the state election ballot.
The bill, which could be voted on in the Senate as early as next week,
is provoking an outcry from government watchdogs, the administration of
Governor Mitt Romney, and Secretary of State William F. Galvin, among
others.
The measure would prohibit groups backing ballot questions from paying
outside firms for each signature gathered, a common practice that
critics see as encouraging fraud but that backers view as essential
given the short time in which groups must gather signatures required
under state law.
The legislation would impose new penalties for fraud or
misrepresentation during signature-gathering and make it possible for
groups opposing ballot questions to gain almost immediate access to the
names and addresses of the people who signed the petitions, providing
them an opportunity to persuade signatories to retract their support. In
addition, it would disqualify signature sheets not signed by the
individual who gathered them, which Galvin contends would punish voters
for the inattentiveness of those collecting signatures.
Opponents of gay marriage called the measure a transparent attempt to
thwart their proposed constitutional amendment, which they are hoping to
get on the 2008 statewide ballot.
"It's obviously first and foremost a political ploy to hinder our
efforts at signature collections," said Kristian Mineau, president of
the Massachusetts Family Institute, which is leading the initiative
against same-sex marriage.
Massachusetts is already viewed as a difficult state in which to pass
laws through ballot referendums. Under Massachusetts law, backers of
citizen initiatives have only 60 days to gather the signatures of 3
percent of the votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election; for
the 2008 ballot, the requirement would be 65,825. The groups then face a
big organizational hurdle: They have to turn the signatures in to the
city and town clerks where those who signed the petition live, so the
clerks can verify that the signers are registered voters. Then, within
two weeks, the groups need to pick up all the validated petition papers
and turn then into the secretary of state's office, which does its own
review.
In addition, courts in Massachusetts have strictly interpreted the
requirements for ballot access, sometimes throwing out signatures based
on stray pen marks.
The new legislation, originally filed by Senator Stanley C. Rosenberg,
Democrat of Amherst, has been submitted in various forms for several
years, but has never made headway. This year, however, the Joint
Committee on Election Laws, under new leadership, is expected to vote in
favor of the bill Monday. Senator Edward M. Augustus Jr., cochairman of
the Joint Committee on Election Laws, said yesterday that he hopes to
see the Senate pass the measure next week.
Augustus, a Worcester Democrat, said the need to tighten the petition
process became more urgent after problems were discovered during the
effort to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in 2001. That
drive was marred by allegations that the out-of-state firm hired by gay
marriage opponents to collect signatures engaged in fraudulent tactics.
The paid signature-gatherers were accused of tricking voters into
signing the petition by telling them they were signing an
innocuous-sounding question, one that would prevent Massachusetts horses
from being sent to slaughterhouses out of state.
Augustus said the bill represents a general tightening of the process,
not an attempt to create more hurdles for those who oppose same-sex
marriage.
"Given that there are a number of initiatives coming down the pike, with
a lot of groups interested, this was the right time to protect the
integrity of the process, so the public could be assured that there's
sunshine in there," Augustus said.
The bill has the strong backing of gay marriage proponents, but they
adamantly rejected any suggestion that the bill is aimed at the proposed
2008 same-sex marriage ban. It is also backed by the League of Women
Voters, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, and
MassVOTE, according to Augustus's office.
"This issue has nothing to do with marriage," said Arline Isaacson,
cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "We
happened to find bait and switch, but it could have been someone else.
This bill doesn't harm any legitimate signature-gathering process; it
only hurts you if you plan to do bait and switch or fraud and forgery.
This has nothing to do with the gay community and everything to do with
honest government and reforming a process."
But critics see the gay marriage issue as the driving force behind the
bill's newfound momentum.
Same-sex marriage "allies want to use this bill to keep the
anti-gay-marriage petitioners from getting signatures this fall," said
Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation, among
several groups opposing the bill. "This Election Laws bill is a weak and
phony front for hatred of the petition process that brings issues into
the public arena for debate. The gay marriage issue, and all issues,
would be better served by both sides expressing confidence in their
position and trusting themselves to sell it to the voters, instead of
expending resources preventing the campaign debate and driving a stake
through the heart of the last best vox populi."
The legislation would essentially kill the initiative process in
Massachusetts, Anderson said.
Several watchdog groups, including Common Cause and the Massachusetts
Public Interest Research Group, say the bill would create new obstacles
in a process already regarded as the toughest in the nation.
Eric Fehrnstrom -- communications director for the governor, who has
come out in support of the Massachusetts Family Institute's amendment --
echoed such sentiments. "We're suspicious of anything that interferes
with the right of the people to directly participate in their government
through the initiative and referendum process," he said.
Harold Hubschman, whose Brookline-based company SpoonWorks is perhaps
the most prominent Bay State firm paid to gather signatures, said that
if the bill passes, his firm would have to charge groups backing ballot
questions a lot more. That's because his workers would be paid by the
hour, rather than by the signature, eliminating an incentive for rapid
collection of names.
Because the question being pushed by the Massachusetts Family Institute
calls for amending the constitution, the group not only needs to gather
the 65,825 signatures, it also must gain the support of least
one-quarter of the 200-member Legislature in two successive sessions
before the question could appear on the 2008 ballot.
Mineau said his group hopes to collect 120,000 signatures with the help
of more than 600 churches, as well as other local and national groups.
The group hopes to rely on paid signature-gatherers as little as
possible, using volunteers instead to build a grass-roots network.
However, he said, "The reason professional signature-gathering is
important in Massachusetts is Massachusetts is already the most
difficult state in the union to gather signatures."
Return to top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|