Voters Want Jane Swift to Call Legislature Back for Vote on Marriage

MassNews
December 2002 Print Edition

A large majority of the voters want Jane Swift to call the Legislature back for a vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment as required under state law, according to a poll of 500 likely voters conducted by The Tarrance Group on October 6-8 and commissioned by MassNews.

Some 64% of the voters favor a recall with only 14% opposing and 22% unsure.

Only a small number of voters at the time of the poll, 23%, had seen, read or heard about the conduct of Senate President Tom Birmingham, who ended the Constitutional Convention without allowing a vote on the Amendment as he was required to do under the state Constitution.

"This is going to be explosive when more people start hearing about this," said J. Edward Pawlick, Publisher of MassNews. "The number of people who are outraged is going to increase dramatically."

He said that MassNews is helping to increase this knowledge with a special issue which was mailed in the middle of October to a quarter-million activists across the state. In addition, Mass. Citizens for Marriage is stepping up its radio advertising across the state.

The surprising part about the support for a special session was that it reached across the entire spectrum with even a majority of Democrats (65%) and self-described liberals (60%) supporting a special session. Some 61% of men favored the recall, while 67% of women did.

In fact, a majority of likely voters in every major demographic group supports a special session to vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment.

Those who knew about Birmingham's illegal actions favored a recall by 69% while those who had to be told were only at 63%, which means that as more and more people learn what happened, it is likely that even more voters are going to favor a recall by the Governor.

Only 19% agreed with Birmingham's decision not to hold a vote.

It's difficult to understand why the Republicans do not pounce on the illegal actions of Sen. Birmingham and the Democratic Party, say the pundits.

The poll shows that a resounding majority of likely voters want Jane Swift to call the Legislature back for a vote. In addition, the Attorney General's office has said that the Governor is required under the Constitution to do so. (It made that statement in its brief in the suit against Birmingham by the President of Mass. Citizens for Marriage, Sarah McVay Pawlick. The Governor is aware of the A.G.'s statement.)

Swift is causing embarrassment for her capable attorneys when she says that she doesn't know what the law is.

So why is she not doing the lawful thing?

Most observers find this difficult to understand. It is clear, they say, that Sen. Birmingham slipped badly in the polls after he violated the law. His negatives rose sharply and he came in a distant third in the primary for Governor. Why would Jane Swift want to risk the same fate?

The pundits also wonder why Republican Mitt Romney failed to take advantage of this serious mistake by the Democrats. And why, when Shannon O'Brien made a serious blunder and said she favors gay marriage, did Romney only retort that she had changed her mind again. Why didn't he embarrass her by asking her position about finally taking a vote in the Legislature on the Marriage Amendment as required under the law? The voters are the ones to make this decision, not Shannon O'Brien.

As more and more people learn about this serious violation of our law, there are many more outraged citizens. They want to end the days of illegal, smoke-filled rooms. The Republicans could ride this to victory if they were smart, but that doesn't appear to be the case, the experts are saying.

The Attorney General's office mentioned the responsibilities of Gov. Swift in response to the lawsuit brought in the SJC against Sen. Thomas Birmingham by Sarah McVay Pawlick, President of Citizens for Marriage.

Gov. Swift is not a named defendant in the suit, which asks the Court to clarify the duties of the Senate President after an Amendment to the state Constitution has been certified by the Secretary of State, but it is obvious that her duties will also be discussed.

The A.G. told the Court the facts of the case, that the Amendment was signed by "sufficient voters" and sent to the Legislature. It was finally laid before a joint session on July 17 "at which time the joint session voted to adjourn … without taking action on the proposed amendment."

The Brief then cited that part of the Constitution which requires the Governor to call the Legislature back to take a vote in that event. It said, "Under art. 48, Init., pt 4 §2, 'if the two houses fail to continue [the joint session] from time to time until final action has been taken upon all amendments pending, the governor shall call such joint session or continuance thereof.' The Governor has not taken any such action."

Pawlick said, "This is exactly the message we have been sending across the state. The Governor is required to call the Legislature back for a vote. She does not have a choice. If we can get the Republicans to recognize that the law must be obeyed, Sen. Birmingham and the Democratic Party will also follow suit.

"Birmingham's violation of the state Constitution really hurt him in the Governor's race. One gets the feeling that he did not want to do what he did, but he was forced to do so by some powerful people. Even Robert Reich and Sen. Kerry called for a vote as required by the Constitution. Hopefully, we will be able to quickly get this behind us and end this terrible blot to our democracy."

Pawlick is not asking either Sen. Birmingham or the Governor to state their opinions on the merits of the Amendment, only to follow the lawful process and send the Amendment to the citizens for their vote in November 2004.

"Then we can all vote in the privacy of the voting booth as the Constitution requires," said Pawlick.

The briefs of the parties contain some arcane language that would be understandable only by a lawyer, but much of it is clear, says Pawlick.

"We are merely asking that they follow the law," said Pawlick.

The oral argument before all seven members of the Court will be held on December 3.