PAWLICK v. BIRMINGHAM, 438 Mass. 1010 (2002)

780 N.E.2d 466

Sarah McVay PAWLICK vs. Thomas BIRMINGHAM another. [1]

SJC-08879Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
December 30, 2002.

[1] . Secretary of the Commonwealth.

General Court. Constitutional Law, General Court, Initiative petition Initiative. Declaratory Relief.

J. Edward Pawlick for the plaintiff.

Peter Sacks, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendants.

RESCRIPT.

Sarah McVay Pawlick appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court dismissing her complaint for declaratory relief. She seeks a declaration of the duties of the President of the Massachusetts Senate, in his capacity as a “private citizen,” under art. 48, The Initiative, IV, as amended by art. 81, § 1, of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution. [2] ,[3] Her complaint alleges that the Senate President acted unlawfully in failing to bring a so-called initiative amendment to a vote of a joint session of the General Court, in accordance with art. 48, The Initiative, IV, §§ 2-4. The single justice did not err in denying the requested relief.

Regardless of the capacity in which the Senate President is named, the fact is that the plaintiff seeks a declaration with respect to his official duties as Senate President. As a private citizen, the Senate President has no official duties, and the plaintiff has no actual controversy with him in that capacity. See G.L.c. 231A, § 1. Declaratory relief is likewise unwarranted, in the circumstances present here, with respect to the Senate President’s official duties as the presiding officer of an art. 48 joint session of the General Court. See, e.g, LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 31 n. 3, 35 (1992) (“Just as a judicial order directing the joint session to act is not appropriate, declaratory relief is not available to the plaintiffs as a remedy”); G.L.c. 231A, § 2. The single justice did not err in denying the requested relief. [4]
So ordered.

[2] . The plaintiff does not allege an actual controversy with the Secretary of the Commonwealth with regard to his performance of duty, nor does her complaint seek any relief against him. The complaint was properly dismissed as to the Secretary.
[3] . The plaintiff also requests a “clarification” concerning the “duties of each legislator when they vote” on an initiative amendment. Neither the joint session nor its members are named as parties and, in any event, that relief is unwarranted in the circumstances of this case. See LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 35 (1992); G.L.c. 231A, § 1.
[4] . We confine our review to the decision of the single justice, based on the record and arguments before him.
jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

COMMONWEALTH v. BORGOS, 464 Mass. 23 (2012)

Commonwealth v. Borgos, 464 Mass. 23 (2012) Dec 21, 2012 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 464 Mass.…

2 months ago

COMMONWEALTH V. JONES, 464 Mass. 16 (2012)

Commonwealth v. Jones, 464 Mass. 16 (2012) Dec 18, 2012 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 464 Mass.…

2 months ago

CROCKER v. TOWNSEND OIL CO., 464 Mass. 1 (2012)

Charles Edward Crocker & another1 vs. Townsend Oil Company, Incorporated, & others.2 Essex. September 4, 2012.…

2 months ago

COMMONWEALTH v. BUSWELL, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (2012)

Commonwealth v. Buswell, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (2012) Dec 12, 2012 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · No. 10-P-1556…

2 months ago

XL Specialty Insurance Company v. Massachusetts Highway Department, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 147 (2013)

XL Specialty Insurance v. Massachusetts Highway Department Massachusetts Superior Court 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 147…

4 months ago

CLARK v. BOARD OF REGISTRATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, 464 Mass. 1008 (2013)

464 Mass. 1008 (2013)980 N.E.2d 928 SANDRA CLARK v. BOARD OF REGISTRATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS.…

4 months ago