captainraincoat
I found your topic!
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/oct/23/bitch-bill-ban-massachusetts What is your take, ERA?
www.resetera.com
locked for no fun allowed.
The thread was closed based on conjecture that this was "bait" and the ending mod post included this twitter post in it from representative Dan Hunt as part of the reason for the thread closure.
Yes, this is part of Massachusetts Constitution. Specifically Article 19, dating all the way back to the 1780.
The problem is that Rep Hunt either doesn't know how the process works or is being willfully obtuse.
Citizens Guide to Drafting Legislation, published by the Secretary of the Commonwealth 1995. Written by Kenneth Bresler - Member of Massachusetts Bar and a former Counsel, House Committee on Bill for the Massachusetts Legislature
Page 22
If your representative has agreed to sponsor your bill, not simply file it for you upon request, he or she will sign the petition on the front where indicated. Following the signature, your Representative will put his or her address or legislative district.
Rep Dan Hunt signed his own bill as BOTH presented by AND petitioned by Dan Hunt
The bill petition is located here for anyone that wants to double check or look at the bill petition.
Where it says: The undersigned legislators and/or citizens respectfully petition for the adoption of the accompanying bill:
It does not have her name, the person triggered by the word bitch, but only the representative's name.
There is also supposed to be some mention that the bill has been forwarded upon request if the representative themselves are not sponsoring the bill petition.
There is a potential for the "by request" to be on the back of one of the forms, but only the two pages are provided on the malegislature.gov site. I wouldn't hold my breath that it does say by request on the back somewhere, the rest of the initiative is written as Rep Dan Hunt sponsored this bill proposal.
There is a CLEAR distinction made in a state that allows the citizenry to submit initiative proposals to allow for a legislator to sponsor a bill or providing assistance to the citizenry to submit their own proposal. This allows a legislator to perform their duty to the citizens of the commonwealth that they are obligated to do, while still allowing the legislator to put forward a bill on request that they might not believe in personally and politically or that they don't want to cosponsor.
The second page again says:
By Mr. Hunt of Boston, a petition (accompanied by bill, House, No. 3719) of Daniel J. Hunt relative to the use of offensive words. The Judiciary.
The bill as written is as though he is the original petitioner or a cosponsor.
There is a separate system for Massachusetts citizens to put forward an initiative for popular vote. This comes from Amendment Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution. The initiative has to first go through the Attorney General’s Office, which determines if the initiative is constitutional.
These are the specific items excluded from citizen initiative petitions.
Is inconsistent with any of the following state constitutional rights:
- The right to receive compensation for private property appropriated to public use;
- The right of access to and protection in courts of justice;
- The right of trial by jury;
- Protection from unreasonable search, unreasonable bail, and the law martial;
- Freedom of the press;
- Freedom of speech;
- Freedom of elections; and
- The right of peaceable assembly
Who knew you couldn't submit an initiative that limits a person's constitutional right to freedom of speech?