SJC Asked to Send 'Protection of Marriage' Amendment to New Legislature

Sidebar: Text of Complaint Sidebar: Letter Sent by Atty. Pawlick to Governor Swift's Lawyer Sidebar: Record of Events of New Lawsuit

MassNews Staff
January 2, 2003

The SJC will be asked by Mass. Citizens for Marriage today to instruct the Secretary of State to send the Protection of Marriage Amendment to the new Legislature for its consideration as the second and final Legislature to consider the measure.

The old Legislature "failed and refused to follow its mandated duty to vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment as required under article 48 of the state Constitution, although it had adequate notice of its responsibilities," MCM said in its suit filed by Atty. J. Edward Pawlick.

It requested the Court to notify the Secretary that the old Legislature "has not availed itself of its right and opportunity" to vote on the measure.

"It was bad enough in this ongoing scandal that both the Governor and the Legislature pretended they didn't know what to do last summer and fall," said Atty. Pawlick, "but it was incredible that they continued the charade after the SJC clearly informed them on Dec. 20 of their rights and duties under the amendment process.

"The SJC worked hard after Gov. Swift asked for an advisory opinion on Dec. 3 as to what was required of her in the matter. Then two days later, Sen. Birmingham also requested advice.

"Although the SJC advised them on Dec. 20, in plenty of time to act, that the Legislature had violated its duties on July 17 when it adjourned without voting on the Amendment, they both ignored their duties."

Pawlick says he is also considering a federal suit for damages under the First Amendment against the Governor and all Legislators who voted to adjourn on July 17.

"But we are trying to mitigate our damages," Pawlick said. "Clearly, the most important thing to the 130,000 citizens who signed the Petition is to move the Amendment to a vote by the people at the election in 2004. If the SJC sends it on to the next Legislature, our damages will obviously be much less than if all of our efforts for more than two years are thrown away. So we will wait to see what happens before considering our federal suit."

Sidebar:
Letter Sent by Atty. Pawlick to Governor Swift's Lawyer
Questioned Whether Jane Swift Should Have Separate Counsel

December 23, 2002

David L. Veator, Esquire
Governor's Legal Counsel
State House
Boston, Massachusetts

Dear Attorney Veator:

I am unaware of the arcane dealings of lawyers at the State House. I do not know whether or not you have ever handled any personal injury cases or had any trial experience. But I must tell you that the Governor is playing with fire at the present moment.

If she had any insurance, her carrier would be all over her at the present time. She has serious exposure for millions of dollars. Yet she is acting like nothing has happened.
The SJC indicated on Friday that she has violated the Constitution. It clearly indicated its annoyance with her behavior.

All that my clients ask is that she obey the law! Is that too much to ask?!

She is liable in federal court for violating the First Amendment rights of my clients. If she continues to dawdle in view of the SJC's clear ruling of Friday, the amount of damages will increase exponentially.

I would also suggest that you, as a lawyer, have a conflict of interest in this case. Clearly she has a personal exposure for millions of dollars. Will you represent her if she is sued? If the Attorney General represents her, I will make the same motion before the federal judge. I do not believe the AG could represent her where she has obviously violated the law.

But even if he did, she would have to have separate counsel also, because there is exposure far beyond what the Commonwealth could legally pay.

I suggest that you look at this carefully, because there are plenty of worms here for all, including the lawyers.

I would like to avoid the worms and get a vote as my clients deserve.

Sincerely,

/s/ J. Edward Pawlick

P.S. I am also sending a flier which is being distributed around the State House today.

Sidebar:

Record of Events of New Lawsuit

Jan. 2 - Complaint filed in Supreme Judicial Court
Complaint is filed in the Single Justice Session of the SJC. A copy is hand carried to the Attorney General.

Jan. 3 - Atty. General Says They Are Considering Their Options
Asst. Atty. Gen. Peter Sacks says on telephone they are considering their options and will advise when they have determined what course they will take.

Jan. 9 - Atty. General Still Considering Options
Asst. Atty. Gen. Peter Sacks says on telephone he is very busy; they are still considering their options. He will advise their feelings about joining a request to the SJC to expedite the case before they are required to file a response to the Complaint, which is Thursday, Jan 23.

Jan. 24 - Attorney General Files "Motion to Dismiss" and Supporting Memorandum