|
|
Did Rules Committee Finally Vote Yesterday on “Removing”
Four Judges???
Constitutionality of Procedure is Questioned.
By Attorney J. Edward Pawlick
The Rules Committee in the House finally voted late yesterday
afternoon in a secret session on whether to allow a vote by all the members
of the House concerning the “Removal” of Justices Marshall, Greaney, Ireland
and Cowin. According to reports, all 15 members of the committee were
present, and the vote was a 7-7 tie, with one abstention. However, this
raises more questions than it answers.
The Committee members have been inundated with telephone calls
and letters from outraged citizens who want a vote to take place on the
floor under Rep. Emile Goguen’s Resolution, which would remove the four
judges under Article 98 of the state Constitution. Those calls and letters
were responsible for yesterday’s meeting.
Yesterday’s vote took place after four o’clock and the State
House will be deserted today because of Bunker Hill Day. So many questions
remain unanswered.
► The Committee’s secret session is forbidden under
the state Constitution and is specifically outlawed in House Rule 17A.
Yesterday, the members forced Rep. Goguen to leave the room before they
started their meeting. When a secret session is held by any Committee,
it is called an Executive Session, which may be held only to discuss private
matters such as the discipline of a public employee and only when specific
safeguards have been met. In addition, “accurate records” must be made
of all meetings and made available to the public.
► More than seven members of the Committee had promised
their constituents they would vote to allow a vote by the House members
on the floor of the Chamber, so it is impossible to reconcile the reports
of a 7-7 tie. This raises speculation that the members were delaying the
vote to confer with someone before a final vote by the Committee on Friday.
► The matter raised concerns that the Rules Committee
has no right to be discussing this Resolution at all.
The entire Legislature is in serious danger of violating the
state Constitution again as occurred in 2002 when the Legislature refused
to vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment. Someone in this Legislature
is again seriously violating the Constitution in treating Rep. Goguen’s
“Resolution” as just another “routine” piece of legislation. After Goguen
filed the Resolution, it was listed in the April 26 “Journal of the House”
as one more “Petition” which had been filed “late” and was therefore “subject
to Joint Rule 12,” which requires all late bills to go through many odious
requirements. Such a decision by someone on April 26 clearly violates
the Constitution.
However, it is unclear whether the decision was just an “honest”
mistake by a Legislature which is tired and is afraid to vote, not only
on homosexual marriage again but on corruption in the courts. It is evident
that most legislators wish to avoid any recorded vote which clearly shows
their decision on either of these matters. There is also the possibility
that someone is deliberately trying to kill the Resolution.
Regardless, everyone can understand that the charges against
Margaret Marshall and the other three judges could not have been brought
by the first Wednesday in December because Marshall did not write her
first opinion in the “Goodridge” case until November 18, 2003 and her
final one on February 3, 2004.
In any event, the rights of the citizens to petition their
government under Article 98 cannot be defeated by procedures which make
a mockery of their rights. Any such petition must go directly to the floor
of the Legislature without any impediments put in its path. The Legislature
cannot declare by its arcane Rules that the Removal procedures are now
null and void.
|
