A Fraudulent Constitutional Amendment?

Submitted by Ofer Inbar on Wed, 07/12/2006 - 12:34pm.
del.icio.us
post to reddit

This morning the Massachusetts legislature opened the 2006 Constitutional Convention. Yet another constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage is on the agenda to be voted on. Last year, such an amendment was defeated by a vote of 39 to 157. But this time, they only need 50 votes, and some of the legislators who voted against last year's amendment because it would have created civil unions, may favor this new amendment, which does not. Why do they only need 50 votes, not a majority, to move this amendment forward? Because it came in the form of an initiative petition signed by enough Massachusetts voters ... or did it?

Yesterday, John Bonifaz called on the legislature to investigate fraud allegations:

Within days after the signature-gathering began for this ballot measure, allegations surfaced throughout the state that signature collectors were using bait-and-switch tactics to deceive people into signing the petitions. MassEquality [...]fielded numerous complaints of signature collectors who asked people to sign a petition to allow the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores, and instead collected the actual signatures on the anti-gay marriage form. Others reported signing a petition to ban greyhound racing and then discovered their names appearing in support of the anti-gay marriage amendment.

Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin failed to conduct any comprehensive investigation of these fraud charges. To the contrary, he certified all of the signatures presented for the anti-gay ballot measure despite acknowledging that thousands of those signatures matched the signatures presented for the measure related to the sale of beer and wine.

Secretary Galvin's failure to carry out his responsibilities as the state's chief elections officer now means that the legislature must act to protect the integrity of our ballot initiative process.

Massachusetts blogger Ryan Adams writes:

Bonifaz could have just earned a friend in me today, because he highlighted an essential point that I've been saying over and over again.

The anti-gay marriage amendment is surrounded by allegations of fraud and there's been nothing to convince me that a serious investigation has been done. Search through my archives on gay marriage and marriage equality and I have lots of links to stories about it, including a link to a video capturing the fraud in action.

It's clear that a majority of the legislature does not support banning same sex marriage. If this amendment moves forward, despite strong opposition from the legislature, it will be due to the signatures of many thousands of Massachusetts voters. Before we act, let's make sure enough of those signatures came from voters who actually intended to put their names in support of this amendment.