The state Supreme Court case in 1992 allowed Sen. President Billy Bulger to break the law and defy the Constitution. 

Even though 72,197 signatures had been certified for a Constitutional Amendment after much hard work from many citizens, Bulger managed to ignore them and nullify the wishes of the citizens. 

The drama starred Bulger and a determined Dorothea Vitrac who had become well known during her battles with Michael Dukakis from her tiny town of New Braintree.

She was very instrumental in helping to defeat Dukakis in his run for President. 

When Dukakis ran for President, she followed him across the country, telling everyone what it was like to have him for a Governor.       

Vitrac Goes for ‘Term Limits’ 

After helping to defeat Dukakis for President, Vitrac continued as an activist, working to enact “term limits” in Massachusetts. Talk show host Jerry Williams on WRKO was an enthusiastic supporter. 

Vitrac got her Petition approved by the Attorney General, and she then obtained 72,197 certified signatures reported to the Legislature on Jan. 3, 1992. Then she waited for the Legislature to perform its duties under the Massachusetts Constitution.  

Term limits was not popular with most politicians in Massachusetts because it included most state and federal politicians in the state. When Bulger acted in an unlawful manner to defeat it, Vitrac and her allies were understandably startled. They appealed to the court for relief. But the SJC pointed out that it lacked any power to force the Legislature to act. 

The SJC said that her Amendment had been “considered” by a joint session of the Legislature on the second Wednesday of May as required. At that time, the Legislature voted to send the Amendment to the SJC to see whether or not it would be legal if approved. This meant that the proposed Amendment went from being first on a list of proposals to the bottom of the list. It was now buried under 22 other complex proposals.

It could not be considered again unless by a unanimous vote of the Legislature.  

Needless to say, the SJC quickly responded to the Legislature’s question and said the measure would be valid if enacted. But now the measure was on the bottom of the pile as Bulger had desired. 

When Vitrac went to the SJC in December to force the Legislature to act, this was the second time that year that the court had heard a suit about the amendment. It noted in its opinion to Vitrac that the only remedy “for the failure of a joint session to act is a direction to the Governor to call a joint session.” It said that the Constitution “provides no judicial remedy.”  

When it wrote the opinion on Dec. 23, the court noted that the Legislature was still in session. It continued, “Article 48 [of the Constitution] does not require final action by any specified time. [citation] The time within which the joint session must act on the initiative amendment continues until January 5, 1993, when the term of the current General Court will end. [citation] The joint session has not yet failed to comply with the direction of art. 48 that it take final action.” 

What Vitrac Was Going Through 

Dorothea Vitrac had little power on her side except the voters. But it was difficult to reach them because there was no Internet. The media were all on the other side, except for Jerry Williams on talk radio. 

The Globe was not on her side. Gov. Weld was wishy-washy at best. The Legislature was solidly against her, having met nine times in joint session without taking a vote on the measure. The SJC was afraid to battle the Legislature because it appropriated all the money for the courts.  

The SJC gave its ruling against Vitrac on December 23, 1992.  

Bulger immediately denied that he personally had defeated term limits. He said that the inaction of the Legislature reflected only that “there were not enough members to force the issue. The people who were opposed to it were adamant in their opposition.” 

Gov. Weld was less than inspiring, saying, “That is a legislative matter. My function is to call them back in, and then it’s really up to the tugging and hauling of the legislative process to get a vote.”  

Rep. David Lionett, the chief proponent of the Amendment, said, “The SJC did its action simply because court reform sits before the Legislature. It is obvious that they, like the legislators, fear the wrath of the Senate president.” He said there was “an implied collusion” between the Legislature and the SJC. 

How Did Bulger Accomplish This? 

Gov. Weld called the Legislature back on January 5, 1993 but Bulger was not impressed.  

The Boston Globe ran a headline the next day: Bulger gavel ends chance for term limits. Weld could have made the Legislature return again the next day, but he did not do so because Bulger and House Speaker Charles Flaherty (D-Cambridge) “made it clear to me … there would be no vote on it.” The Governor did not want to gain the ire of those important people. 

Bulger said the complaints were sour grapes because the opponents had not persuaded enough legislators to support their cause. 

“Everybody who gets signatures on a petition doesn’t have the right to insist that we rubber-stamp it and put it on the ballot,” he told the Boston Globe. 

He had found an obscure rule that requires adjournment of a constitutional convention if a regular session of the Legislature is scheduled to begin. It states, “If the two houses are in joint session ten minutes before the hour of meeting of either branch, the President shall declare an adjournment.” 

So he had his allies prolong the Constitutional session until ten minutes before a scheduled meeting of the Senate. He then adjourned without a vote ever having taken place. The session began at 11 a.m. and a Bulger ally, Sen. Paul White (D-Boston) was immediately recognized to speak on a proposal to add antiabortion language to the state Constitution. After the recess, White went into his second hour and Bulger closed the meeting at 1 p.m., ten minutes before the Senate was scheduled to begin. 

There were many people trying to get the floor during those two hours, but Bulger never recognized any of them. 

Same Thing Happened in 1990 

Sen. Bulger did the same thing to Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates in 1990. They had a Constitutional Petition before the Legislature but it died without a vote. 

They and the Boston Globe were surprisingly calm about Bulger’s stance, apparently because they had second thoughts about the measure. 

They had trouble agreeing on the language of their Amendment and they told the Globe they would “possibly forgo the ballot process altogether to concentrate its efforts on electing state officials who support abortion rights.” But they went ahead and obtained the necessary signatures to get on the ballot. 

The following May, Bulger changed his mind and allowed the measure to come before the full Legislature sitting as a Constitutional Convention. 

But the matter was a dead issue and, surprisingly, the Globe did not write it about it until December when it had the following headline on page 64, Proposed Abortion Amendment Dies Quietly in Mass. Legislature. 

It said the measure never came up for a vote. Opponents of the measure said it was because of its extreme nature which allowed abortions up until a baby’s birth for rape, incest or health of the mother. They said that could be interpreted to be used for almost every abortion. 

The head of Planned Parenthood retorted, “The democratic process was stalled by an outrageous and insidious collection of delaying tactics led by Senate President William Bulger, who repeatedly abused his power in the joint session by refusing to allow any substantive debate. Only two hours of debate in eight months was ever permitted, most of it in rambling antichoice filibuster.” But apparently, she was not too concerned. 

Frightening New Tactic 

Sen. Bulger exhibited a frightening new tactic at that time by making the supporters of the Amendment obtain over 50% of the joint Legislature instead of the 25% that is required under the Constitution. 

He did this by insisting that a quorum of 101 Legislators be present during any debate. The Boston Globe explained it this way: 

“Bulger said the amendment fight was lost this year because proponents did not care passionately enough about it, allowing sessions to end because they could not keep enough supporters in the chamber to debate.” 

But this new Bulger rule meant that the supporters had to have 101 Legislators on their side to keep the measure alive instead of only 50 as is specifically specified in the Constitution. 

(Much of what was reported in this story came from the archives of the Boston Globe. The Globe was against term limits, obviously because it would reduce the newspaper’s power if the legislature became more volatile and difficult to control as a result of having a bunch of citizen legislators. But the Globe did pretend to be angry when Billy Bulger ignored the Constitution. A total of fourteen other states passed Term Limits that year.)