Opinion of the Justices to the Senate
Citation | 595 N.E.2d 292,413 Mass. 1201 |
Parties | OPINION OF THE JUSTICES TO THE SENATE. |
Decision Date | 07 July 1992 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
On July 7, 1992, the Justices submitted the following answers to questions propounded to them by the Senate.
To the Honorable the Senate of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
The undersigned Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court respectfully submit their responses to the questions set forth in an order adopted by the Senate on May 13, 1992, and transmitted to this court on May 19, 1992. The order recites that House No. 4000, an initiative petition entitled "Initiative Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution limiting the terms of office of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary, treasurer, attorney general, auditor, councillor, state senator, state representative, United States senator and representative in congress," is an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth pending before the General Court which seeks to add an additional qualification for persons seeking election to particular public offices, and that grave doubt exists as to the constitutionality of the initiative amendment, if finally approved. The initiative petition proposes amendments to Part II, c. 2, § 1, art. 2; Part II, c. 2, § 2, art. 1; Part II, c. 1, § 2, art. 5, of the Massachusetts Constitution; and arts. 101, 16, and 17, of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, adding the following additional sentences to the specified sections, as appropriately revised:
The initiative petition further amends the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution by adding the following new article, to be numbered sequentially:
The order presents this court with the following questions:
We invited interested parties to submit briefs. In response, we received briefs from the Attorney General and an amicus curiae, Term Limits Legal Institute and Term Limits Proponents, both of which support the initiative measures. The Governor filed a letter supporting House No. 4000 and joining in the arguments presented in the briefs. No brief was filed against the initiative measures.
1. The Massachusetts Constitution and term limitations. The right of the people to amend the Massachusetts Constitution through the initiative process is not absolute. Article 48, the Initiative, II, § 2, of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, precludes the use of the initiative procedure to enact any statute or constitutional amendment that is inconsistent with the freedom of elections provision of the Declaration of Rights. 1 We must interpret the language of art. 48 "in 'a sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption,' because it is proposed for public adoption and must be understood by all entitled to vote." Attorney Gen. v. Methuen, 236 Mass. 564, 573, 129 N.E. 662 (1921), quoting Bishop v. State, 149 Ind. 223, 230, 48 N.E. 1038 (1898). See Cohen v. Attorney Gen., 357 Mass. 564, 571, 259 N.E.2d 539 (1970). An examination of the records of the debates and proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of 1917-1918, from which art. 48 emerged, helps to clarify the conditions under which it came into existence, how it was received and understood by that convention, and, consequently, how it was commonly understood at the time of its adoption. See Cohen v. Attorney Gen., supra at 571-572, 259 N.E.2d 539; Loring v. Young, 239 Mass. 349, 368, 132 N.E. 65 (1921); Opinion of the Justices, 233 Mass. 603, 604-605, 125 N.E. 849 (1920).
Cohen v. Attorney Gen., supra 357 Mass. at 572, 259 N.E.2d 539. The initiative and referendum issue also became the major issue at the convention itself. R.L. Bridgman, Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1917, 41 (1923). Cohen v. Attorney Gen., supra at 572-573, 259 N.E.2d 539.
Joseph Walker of Brookline was the floor leader for the initiative and referendum amendment throughout the constitutional convention, and George B. Churchill of Amherst eventually became the recognized floor leader of the opponents of the initiative and referendum. R.L. Bridgman, supra at 48. After the opponents of the initiative and referendum were unable to prevent the amendment to the Constitution through the initiative process, Churchill proposed excluding only the provisions of the Declaration of Rights from the initiative petition process, and his motion succeeded by a vote of 127 to 126 on October 17, 1917. 2 Debates in the Constitutional Convention 1917-1918, 737-739 (1918). Concerned that, if social welfare legislation should be found unconstitutional as had happened with mandatory workers' compensation legislation in New York, the people would not be able to amend the Declaration of Rights through the initiative process to make this type of legislation constitutional, Walker sought reconsideration which failed by a 117-to-124 vote. Id. at 739-740. After further debate on the relationship between social welfare legislation and the Declaration of Rights, Walker's motion to strike out the previously adopted Churchill amendment passed by a 147-to-137 vote in mid-November, 1917. Id. at 948. Churchill's subsequent attempt to reinstitute his initial amendment failed, and the convention eventually adopted, by a vote of 107 to sixty-six, a motion by John Merriam of Framingham which became the present language of art. 48, The Initiative, II, § 2, which now concerns us. Id. at 1000-1003. Merriam's amendmen...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Martin
... ... suspect has voluntarily waived Miranda is based on totality of circumstances); and compare Opinion of the Justices, 413 Mass. 1201, 595 N.E.2d 292 (1992) (evidence of refusal to take breathalyzer ... ...
-
Glovsky v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc.
... ... Present: IRELAND, C.J., SPINA, CORDY, BOTSFORD, GANTS, DUFFLY, & LENK, JJ. 1 Opinion DUFFLY, J. Steven M. Glovsky sought to solicit signatures for his nomination to public office ... the fundamental right of equal access to the ballot, a basic right, Opinion of the Justices, 413 Mass. 1201, 1210, 595 N.E.2d 292 (1992), that is of fundamental importance in our form of ... ...
-
Goldstein v. Sec'y of the Commonwealth
... ... Third, subject to the restrictions outlined later in this opinion, we order the Secretary to allow the submission and filing of nomination papers with electronic ... signatures for those offices requiring 1,000 or more signatures by fifty percent, see 2020 Senate Doc. No. 2632, or by two-thirds for all offices, see 2020 House Doc. No. 4981. The Senate has ... which reasonably regulate elections and access to a place on the ballot." Opinion of the Justices , 368 Mass. 819, 821-822, 333 N.E.2d 380 (1975). See Opinion of the Justices , 413 Mass. 1201, ... ...
-
Stumpf v. Lau, 23517
... ... OPINION ... SPRINGER, Vice-Chief Justice: ... On August 19, 1992, this ... Even one of this court's justices wondered if it might not be proper to allow the matter on the ballot just so the people would "be ... Therefore, for this court to address the questions posed by the Senate regarding the constitutionality of the initiative under the United States Constitution we would ... ...