Dems make up rules, ignore Constitution [MA Dems Continue Political Lawlessness]

Do Senate President Robert Travaglini (D-East Boston) and his Democratic Senate colleagues even have a copy of the Massachusetts Constitution? They probably figure they don't need the 227-year-old document since it's easier to make up the rules as they go along.

It's now up to the Supreme Judicial Court to remind them of their constitutional duty to properly set a special election date to fill the seat of Sen. Cheryl Jacques (D-Needham).

Notice, by the way, we didn't refer to the former Sen. Jacques or the recently retired Sen. Jacques. Jacques is still the senator of the Norfolk, Bristol and Middlesex District. There is no vacancy.

And Amendment Article 24 of the state Constitution is crystal clear about how a vacancy, when it comes about, is filled. ``Any vacancy in the Senate shall be filled by election by the people of the unrepresented (emphasis ours) district, upon the order of a majority of senators elected.''

Jacques submitted a resignation letter on Nov. 18 with an effective date of Jan. 4 to help Senate Democrats justify holding the special election to replace her on Mar. 2, the date of the Massachusetts presidential primary. A Mar. 2 date will advantage the Democratic candidate since turnout will be much greater among Democrats in the state's contested primary.

Since at least 12 weeks must elapse between when the vacancy occurs and the general election, a phony vacancy had to be created in November to set the election in March.

How do we know the vacancy's phony? We called Jacques' office - 617-722-1555 - and the person answering the phone said ``Good Afternoon, this is Sen. Jacques office.''

Even better, after Jacques' ``irrevocable'' resignation letter was submitted, she voted on the supplemental budget, the economic stimulus bill, the statewide smoking ban and unemployment insurance. That's hard to do if you're no longer in office.

Another argument the Republicans are making in the SJC lawsuit is that the Senate violated Article 9 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights which guarantees citizens an equal right to elect officers. By favoring one political party over the other in the setting of this election, some voters are being denied that equal right.

The Republicans offered a common sense compromise of holding the special election primary on Mar. 2 and holding the general election when other local elections are being held later in the spring.

Senate Democrats arrogantly decided to violate the Constitution instead. They should be stopped.

Here you go, I should have provided context the first time:

http://www.townonline.com/wellesley/news/local_regional/wt_newwtjacques11262003.htm

The Wellesley (MA) Townsman, 12/8/03

Romney: Democrats trying to rig election for Cheryl Jacques' seat

By Michael C. Levenson / State House News Service
Wednesday, November 26, 2003

Gov. Mitt Romney on Monday accused Democratic leaders in the state Senate of "trying to rig the election outcome" in the race to replace Sen. Cheryl Jacques by scheduling the election on the same day as the presidential primary, when Democratic voters are expected to flood the polls.

The Republican Party, in a separate announcement, said it would go to court to move the election date, if Senate leaders did not act within the next two weeks to rescind their order for a special election. Party chairman Darrell Crate told reporters outside the doors of the Senate chamber that Senate leaders violated their own rules and the state Constitution by setting a special election date before Jacques, a Needham Democrat, has officially resigned her office. The order passed the Senate on a nearly party-line 31-7 vote.

Jacques has said she plans to step down on Jan. 4 and move to Washington, D.C., to become executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, an influential gay rights organization. Her Norfolk, Bristol and Middlesex District includes Natick, Wayland, Wellesley and Needham.

Legislative rules and the Constitution outline procedures for filling a vacancy, but in this case, "there certainly is no vacancy and that's unconstitutional," Crate said. He said the party had hired John Montgomery, an attorney with Ropes & Gray, who defended Romney when the Democratic Party challenged his residency in the gubernatorial campaign, to assist in the challenge. The party would head to court by the end of next week, if the Senate does not reverse its order, Crate said.

Romney, asked about the challenge at a news conference on sex offender legislation, said he was pleased that party officials were taking "aggressive action" to challenge the election order pushed by Senate leaders.

"The efforts to try to rig the election outcome by timing it with the democratic primary is really not well-founded and it has the potential of backfiring, not only in this race but in races across the state," Romney said. "You have to have balance in government. Democracy requires two parties."

The Republican Party is promoting the candidacy of Scott Brown, a three-term state representative with a military background, who is running to replace Jacques. The party and Romney have made it a top priority to win back enough seats in the Senate to uphold a gubernatorial veto, and the Jacques seat is a key prize in that battle. Republicans control 6 of 40 seats in the Senate; 14 are needed to protect a gubernatorial veto. At least four Democrats are vying for Jacques' seat.

Ann Dufresne, spokeswoman for Senate President Robert Travaglini, gave no indication Senate leaders would back away from their order, saying the date was set to ensure Jacques' constituents would be represented during the spring budget debate. She has said the election will cost $150,000 to $200,000 less than if the election were held separate - figures which Republican officials dispute.

She declined to comment on the political implications of the date, other than to say, "Elections are a matter of strong candidates getting their people out."

Another question might be why the Dems are worried. It appears her past GOP challeger got 30% his first atempt to unseat her and about 40% his second try. Dems fear third time's an unlucky charm in an open seat race?

http://www.townonline.com/dover/news/local_regional/ds_newdselection12042003.htm

The Dover-Sherborn (MA) Press, 12/8/03

"On the Republican side, this is Sholley's third attempt to capture Jacques' seat. He moved to the district years ago specifically with the intention of unseating her and lost twice - in 2000 receiving about 30 percent of the vote, and in 2002 garnering about 40 percent.

"Sholley always positioned himself as the exact opposite of Jacques. While Jacques fought for rights for gays and lesbians, worked to toughen gun laws and improve domestic violence laws to protect victims and punish offenders, Sholley hoped to undo many of her efforts.

"While Sholley garnered substantial support, his campaign was always riddled with controversy, partly as a result of his having been convicted in 1994 of assault and battery against his youngest daughter. Sholley fought the charges, and said that he only slapped his adolescent daughter's face to discipline her because she was out of control."

Snip

Can't say Sholley seems like someone I would support w/out a LOT more info/reassurance about the 'disciplining' charge, but for some reason the Dems are worried.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.