Swift and Birmingham Seek SJC's Advice
Gov. Jane Swift		Sen. Tom Birmingham

MassNews Print Edition
January 2003

Gov. Jane Swift startled the state on Tuesday, Dec. 3rd by asking the Supreme Judicial Court for advice on what she is required to do about the Protection of Marriage Amendment.

The Boston Globe had a large, front-page story about her request. She had announced the day before that she would be seeking the advice of the Court on Tuesday.

"There we were in the courtroom before the SJC on Tuesday arguing whether I had the right to sue," says Sarah McVay Pawlick, President of Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage.
"Was I just another citizen so they should dismiss my case without even discussing it? Jane Swift had already announced that she was seeking the advice of the Court. This all happened before the lawyers even started to argue.

"Then Tom Birmingham did the same thing, two days later on Thursday. Birmingham apparently acted without telling his lawyers that he was officially putting himself under the jurisdiction of the Court for the same questions that I was asking which is, what is his role?"
Pawlick says that the Attorney General has represented Birmingham in her suit from the beginning and says he will also represent Birmingham if any suit for damages is filed against him personally. Although Gov. Swift is not officially a defendant in Pawlick's suit, anything the Court says will have an obvious impact on her role also. The lawyers assume the Attorney General would represent her as well if any lawsuits are filed.

"We would like to just settle this and get a vote on our Amendment," says Pawlick. "That's been our only aim since the beginning. All we ask is that everyone obey the law. Let's count the votes. But we can't count them if we don't even have a vote!"

It is difficult to know how the SJC will deal with this as a legal question because while the Court obviously has notice that Birmingham has voluntarily put himself under its jurisdiction for everything that Pawlick asked for in her suit, he is not officially a party to her lawsuit, although it was obviously her suit that forced the action on his part.

Observers say it should not matter because she should be getting the relief she requested in her suit in any event.

The Court sent a notice that it is seeking briefs from any interested party on the requests for advisory opinions from the Governor and Senate President. They set a deadline for those briefs of Dec. 13. Most observers expected an answer from the Court on Dec. 17 or 18.