The following leaflet is being distributed today to all Legislators by Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage.

Will 2002 Democratic Party Destroy Liberal's Dream of Circumventing an 'Unresponsive' Legislature?

In 1918, it was proclaimed that every Legislator Is Required to Send an Amendment to the People Unless it is a 'Freak Proposition,' 'Without Merit,' that was 'Introduced Rashly and Without Proper Consideration.'

December 11, 2002

When the Convention assembled in Boston on October 9, 1917, to continue revising our Constitution, they were excited.

The dreams of the liberals and Progressives to circumvent the "twenty-one willful men" in the Senate were being accomplished. No longer would 21 conservative Senators be able to stop the people from adopting Amendments.

Even conservatives were happy that a better method of amending the Constitution, without completely opening up the process to the excitable masses, had been found.

This new idea, they said, would be sure to "cut off the freak proposition, the proposition that is without merit and is introduced rashly and without proper consideration."

Under their new system, the Legislature would still be involved. But it would meet as one large body in a Joint Session, not as two separate groups. Then, as now, there were 160 in the House and 40 in the Senate.

The delegates made it very clear they had given a "minority check" to the Legislature only to assure the conservatives that the process was not being opened to the wild ideas of the masses. The Legislature would be involved to debate and examine the measure, but only 25% were required to send it on to the people.

Totally Unknown to 2002 Legislature

In 2002, the Legislators do not understand this. They believe they are required to send amendments on to the people only if they, the Legislator, approves. But that is not the purpose of the minority check.

The SJC explained it in 1982: "The 'one-fourth vote' requirement applicable to initiative amendments was intended as a 'legislative minority check' on initiative amendments to the Constitution. Its purpose is to ensure that initiative amendments submitted to the people for approval have at least a reasonable amount of public support, as reflected by the favorable votes of at least one-fourth of the legislators elected to the General Court."

One of the leaders, Mr. Quincy of Boston, told the Assembly that because of this new process, real debate would occur on the Amendments.

"One great advantage of the legislative minority check as embodied in this amendment is that it does salinger.real debate in the General Court."

How astounded would Mr. Quincy and the others be to discover that in 2002 no debate at all -- absolutely none, zero, zilch -- would be allowed. Or that the President of the Senate would ask the Supreme Judicial Court for a formal opinion as to whether it is necessary that they have any debate.

Mr. Quincy went on. "We have heard one objection [that has been proposed before this day and has been] dwelt upon at much length and with much force upon this floor, namely, that it does not permit debate and amendment; that it does not permit the operation of that orderly process of discussion, consideration, amendment, which this Convention is engaged in working out as to the important matters which we have had under consideration.

"And while the legislative minority check is in theory, -- and I admit it frankly, -- contrary to the pure theory of the initiative, in that it brings the Legislature in and does not allow the people to go completely around the Legislature and to entirely disregard it, yet in the form in which it stands in this amendment I believe that it is the sacrifice of a theory for a very practical and desirable end.

"What we are after is results, rather than being strictly logical in respect to maintaining a theory of legislation, or of getting along without any legislative action. And I say as a practical question, as a working question, that this legislative minority check is not inconsistent with the true purpose, in its broad aspect, or with the practical and successful operation of the initiative method of making amendments to the Constitution."

Therefore, every legislator is expected to vote to send an amendment to the people unless the Legislator sincerely believes it is a "freak proposition," "without merit," that was "introduced rashly and without proper consideration."

Unable to Conceive of Legislature Which Didn't Obey the Law

When asked what would happen if the two Houses failed to agree upon a time for the Joint Session, Mr. Quincy was unable to even conceive such a thing ever happening. The liberals and conservatives of that time had gigantic differences, but they never doubted each other's honor. Therefore, Mr. Quincy answered the question with this statement:

"I do not believe we need to consider seriously that contingency or a defiance of the provisions of the amendment by either of these two branches of the General Court."