2023-03-28 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on the Judiciary

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

REP ARMINI - HB 30 - HB 31 - HB 32 - Good afternoon, Chairman Day, Chairman Eldridge, Vice Chair of Edwards and my esteemed colleagues of the Judiciary Committee. I'm Jenny Armini of the 8th Essex District. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of my bills that I filed to amend the Massachusetts constitution to include the pronouns, her and their when referring to the honorifics, excuse me, excellency and honor for the governor and lieutenant governor. I understand that amending the constitution is a lengthy process, but there are good reasons for the 193th general court to set the wheels in motion. First and most obvious history has blown by the Massachusetts constitution. Just a few months ago we joyfully inaugurated Maura Healey, the first elected woman governor and Kim Driscoll, the lieutenant governor. The first all women executive team.

And the state was led by its first female chief executive acting governor Jane Swift more than 20 years ago. Perhaps that begs the question, why bother? Clearly, the constitution's existing language had little impact on the recent electoral fortunes of women but words matter. Language is a signal to the world. It's how we communicate our values, and it's a tool by which citizens learn who and what is important. Actions often follow accordingly. If thought corrupts language, wrote George Orwell in 1984, language can also corrupt thought. In this case, our Commonwealth's most sacred document upon which our freedom and the rule of law rest conveys the supremacy of one gender.

For John Adams, the title his excellency was an obvious 18th century choice despite his wife's entreaties to remember461 the ladies. We have no such excuse. Our own history is begging us to catch up, but both H 30 and H 31 go a step further by imagining a time in the not too distant future when someone unencumbered by gender, or gender assigned at birth sits in the corner office. I can't help but think of my amazing colleague Rep Sam Montano487 from Jamaica Plain who is full of promise. The burden of history weighs heavily here. How will future generations look upon us with all of our experience and knowledge if we don't make this change?

Will they surmise that we simply didn't care enough? Or that lingering sexism and bias prevented it? We have an opportunity to show our children that while Massachusetts honors its past, it prizes its present and its future more highly. John Adams himself expected as much. In his defense of the constitution of the US, He wrote, it's for the young to make themselves masters of what their predecessors have been able to comprehend and accomplish, but imperfectly. These two bills, along with H 32 filed by representative Mindy Domb, seek to do just that. Thank you for your time, attention and consideration. I am humbled and grateful to be here. Thank you.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

REP SHAND - HB 30 - HB 31 - SB 10 - HB 32 - So I can't believe I'm here today. Thank you for allowing me to address the committee. I remember being a high school student in Selma, Alabama in a different century. And being told by a history Ed English teacher that the pronoun he was appropriately encompassing in our foundational documents. Our 2022 election turned an existential argument into a grammatical error. Rep Armini asked me to address the committee as the past president of the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus, but I'd actually like to address the committee today as a writer. So in the the bills you're looking at today, you're being asked to evaluate English grammar, H 30, H 31, and S 10 look at the possessive pronoun before an622 honorific. And H 32 addresses the pronoun he.

So our state's constitution uses the possessive pronoun before the honorific title, excellency, as in his excellency. So the Chicago Manual of Style, which my version is older than my aide. But the Chicago Manual of Style does not mention excellency. It mentions the custom of placing the article the before the honorific of honorable. So we say the honorable Chair Day or the on the the right reverend662 Fluker-Oakley. These are just conventions. They are they're not hard and fast rules. In fact, the AP Guidebook, which Sate House News lent me, does not mention honorifics at all. The Chicago Manual of Style does. You know, language evolves, it changes, and in the case of Massachusetts convention, it should change.

That said, I want to advocate for removing the possessive pronoun before excellency and make the choice of possessive, something for style guides, and for diplomatic protocols to address. I just want696 to696 address too this idea that the pronoun they and theirs as it applies to a single person. I do admire and believe in this Whitmanesque idea that each of us contains multitudes. That said, I believe it is entirely possible in our lifetime that we can see an entirely new and713 non binary pronoun emerge in English, much like we're seeing717 in Spanish718 with Latinx and in the Canadian French dialogue with il as a contraction for il and elle. And as for H 32, I really wholeheartedly support this elegant solution. It addresses not just the state's leaders, but all of us is citizens and how our constitution's language addresses each person. Thank you so much.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

REP DOMB - HB 32 - HB 33 - HB 30 - HB 31 - Good afternoon, distinguished colleagues, Mr. Chairs. The first thing I want to do is I want to thank you for advancing what is this sessions H 33 in the past two sessions when it's been introduced, and I'd789 like to talk a little bit about that first and then swing right into H 32. H 33 is a constitutional amendment that would change the oaths and affirmations part of our Massachusetts State Constitution and allow any individual who's been elected to office to either swear or affirm their oath. Currently in the Massachusetts State Constitution, only people of Quaker faith are able to affirm their oath. Everybody else does not have a choice, does not have an option. I learned about this, and some of you who were on the committee in the past 2 sessions have heard this, who indulge me, please,829 when I first got elected.

And I went831 to speak with the clerk about what to expect, you know, during the oath taking. And I was asked you know, what's your religion. And I truly did not understand why that was a question that was being asked. And I said, why is that important? And he said, because if you're a Quaker, you'll affirm your own. And I said, oh, I was planning on affirming my oath, but I'm not a Quaker. He's like, don't think you can do that. And I was like, really, he was like, I'd love to check with House Counsel. And in fact, we858 learned that the only way for people to have an option is to in fact change the constitution. Trust me, I've looked it up. I'd rather not go through a very long process to do it. But because it's in the constitution we need to.

Now I represent the Third Hampshire District, which may have of most number of Quakers actually in the state. And you'll be receiving letters from some of them because I think they've decided sort of take this up and say they would also ask for it to be available to any individual. For me, it's really an inclusive piece. It's like we all should be able to swear or affirm our oath. Nothing should be separated by religion or prevent other people from doing something because they don't share that religion. So in that spirit, first of all,904 thank you again so much905 for advancing this amendment. I think prior to my coming to the House many terms ago, this was introduced by predecessors and foremothers and forefathers in this building. And I'm hoping that we can advance it, get it on a calendar for institutional convention and make it happen.

But on the spirit of making the constitution inclusive, I resubmit and refile amendment number 32, which would change the he's in the934 Massachusetts State Constitution to the, quote, the person, unquote. You know, there's a saying now that we all hear quite a lot, which is if you can see it, you can be it. And basically, our constitution does not allow young women, girls, or older women to see themselves in the constitution because he is not an inclusive term. He is a gender term. I grew up much like the predecessor hearing my whole life. Don't worry, he includes you. How does it include me? If I wrote on a test, you know, when I was growing up in first grade, you know, Mindy Domb, he, it would be long and I'd be corrected.

This doesn't have to do with, I know the the way gender has been politicized in our country right now. There's no threat to changing the he to the person. There's only an attempt to include988 51% of the990 population in the constitution and to see themselves in the constitution. So we suggest the person. New York and Rhode Island have moved ahead and done that. They've change their constitution to include the person, but it could be changed to they. According to Miriam Webster Dictionary, which happens to be based in Western Massachusetts, they is an acceptable form for a singular pronoun, so it could be changed to they. I personally think the person is probably better because it includes people of all gender expressions.

But I would call your attention to the fact and without belaboring the point, that right now in the Massachusetts Constitution, an intern in my office counted that there is mail centered language 97 times. That includes he, his, him, man, and men. And there are zero instances, zero of women centered language. So it's not like an either or here. It's just an either. I have a constituent who met me in a farmer's market last summer, and when she wanted to talk to me about this bill, I raise this for your consideration then I'll close. She said,1055 well, if it really doesn't matter, let's change all the he's to she. And we we thought about that.

We thought, well, should we change that? And it's like, I don't want to make a joke of the legislative process. But I ask us to consider that question. If it makes no difference, why wouldn't we change them all to she? So thank you so much for the opportunity to talk. I hope that you'll advance this. I also want to speak in favor of 30 and 31. We now live in the time. We don't have to say someday we'll need to say her excellency. We already need to say her excellency. And hopefully, we'll continue being able to do that a long time. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

VINCENT DIXON - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 11 - HB 30 - Chairs, co-chair, committee, my representative. My name is Vincent Lawrence Dixon, 60 Lake Street, Unit N. Winchester, Mass1155 01890. Long term activist, additional contact information available. I appear before you to strongly support a significant proposal, so I think a term renewal process for all judges, judicial officials, and appointments by the governor that are subject to hearing and confirmation by the honorable governor's council to contribute to important reform of our legal system, including our judiciary. Public education on this and other legal reforms is important. This is a bill that stands on its own while also being part of larger expanded Massachusetts agenda.

In a year of this new legislative session, when criminal justice reform has been previously partially accomplished, there is more to be done and it's especially appropriate to focus on the approach in this particular bill. This term renewal constitutional amendment provision proposed in that, which is now known as number S 11 establishes the concepts of terms and review of performance to the position of judge, members of the Industrial Accident Board, and selected other officials. All such officials would have to be reappointed by the governor and reconfirmed by the governor's council every 10 years. No such official could serve more than six months beyond their term unless reappointed and reconfirmed.

I believe that it is important in our present time to provide reform that is sound thoughtful, principled, and pragmatic so that we improve our system and also provide a backstop against what are truly further more dangerous ideas such as elected judges and other problematic suggestions. I am mindful of other approaches which have come before this committee suggesting a period of seven years for many such1260 officials. But may inherently be discriminatory because it imposes an age retirement requirement. In an era when graceful aging and even physical stamina are increasingly known among older people, we should not want to exclude talented and wise jurists nor have to periodically tinker with such numbers.

I also do want to note my support of H 33, which would give valuable respect to many, including especially members of the Society of Friends. I had the honor to know the late Representative Mary Newman of Cambridge, who was once a member of this General Court and who was a modest mentor. On one occasion when I was joining the1298 Finance Committee of my town of Winchester I did in fact1301 take an affirmation of office and her honor from our town clerk at her discretion. I will file longer remarks because I think there are some important other points about this. As Harvard Law School pioneered case study method, it has been developing continuing education for judges, and I think a fuller training program, which I've mentioned, elsewhere to have a graduate judicial training school would be helpful to the broader system. I welcome discussion. I look forward to being in further touch. And I believe that Massachusetts through such a measure can improve the quality of justice and strengthen the foundations of popular trust and the components of artificial systems. And thank you.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

REP DURANT - Thank you Mr. Chair, thank you. My question is simply what's the danger of reappointment in making those decisions political?

DIXON - There's always a political element. I think the 10 year requirement is a stable one. Many federal boards and commissions have a 10 year limit. It's allowing for reappointment. And I think some people tend to think, well, older people tend to lose their faculties. It ignores the fact that people in their 50s and 60s who've been on the bench for a while, may in fact be lazy, not keeping up with the field. I think by simply applying a 10 year standard regardless of age, it makes it flexible. And it makes it pretty straightforward and clear. And the idea of further training, I mean, at this point, I understand that when judges are appointed, they go to a two or three week program out in Las Vegas. I'm just sort of curious. But you know, in some foreign countries, actually, they are trained to be judges.

It was in fact a woman judge in Puerto Rico who first came across the fact there wasn't a coherent training program for judges and was pointed to several countries in Europe where there's training, including in England where in fact, many, bright law students are trained to be certain kinds of judges. You know, the present system assumes that a prosecutor will see an innocent person and a defense attorney will see a guilty person1448 when they're a judge. And eventually, it does work out, but there is a learning curve that, frankly, I don't think has a good ladder or a good ramp into that in the sense of a sudden shift from being a prosecutor or a defense attorney. And I've heard of many cases of individuals who felt that that was something they encountered before.

DURANT - A judge who's maybe that's very necessarily coming up on reappointment that he loses his independence? Is there studies out in saying that would say, because I agree I don't think that you should be electing them, it seems to be kind of an odd thing. But I kind of understand the ability of once the1492 judge is appointed, you're independent, unless you commit some kind of gross malfeasance. But are their studies or anything that show that reappointment or turning out, you know, to kind of let's than keep independence or doesn't make them necessarily political?

DIXON - I think you make a couple of direct and indirect good points. There needs to be a little more research on those kinds of issues. And there is, of course, a broader problem that many of us are aware of that civic education and values1525 are poorly understood. The schools have not taught that in a while. The Legislature through your wisdom has passed laws that are encouraging civic education again. But until we bring the population up to a fuller understanding, let alone the legal profession on some of these issues, I think independence, people find ways to put these issues out politically. And I think by having a reappointment process and a re-vetting process, perhaps you reduce some of that, and make it a slightly more professional process since the governor's council, clearly, even1559 by people who don't always agree with it, has performed a service from time to time.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE