By Father Bill Pomerleau

Observer, Springfield Diocese, May 26, 2000, at 3

BOSTON - A legislative defeat for the movement to repeal the anti-aid amendments to the state constitution resulted from "an honest legal disagreement between the House and Senate," according to the president of the Parent Alliance for Catholic Education (PACE).

"I want to state from the outset that both the House and Senate leaders have legitimate and honest legal opinions for their respective positions," wrote Steve Perla, president of PACE, in a May 11 memo to Catholic school principals and parent leaders.

A joint session of the legislature adjourned on May 10 after a motion to take up a proposed referendum repealing the anti-aid amendments to the state constitution was withdrawn by its sponsor.

The session, known as a constitutional convention, opened with a bid by Rep. John Rogers (D-Norwood) to consider the nearly 100,000 signatures gathered last year by voters wanting an anti-aid repeal question placed on the 2002 state election ballot. Reflecting the views of House Speaker Thomas Finneran (D-Mattapan) and many other legislators, Rogers argued that a May 5 federal court ruling, which refused to order a legislative consideration of the petition, could be bypassed by the legislature.

Senate President Thomas Birmingham (D-Chelsea), who under state law chairs the constitutional convention, ruled Roger's motion out of order.

Birmingham, who has said he considers Amendment 18 to the constitution to be an embarrassing remnant of the state's anti-Catholic past, nonetheless contended that the legislature is powerless to consider its repeal through an initiative petition because the petition has not been certified by state Attorney General Thomas Reilly.

Reilly had refused to certify the signatures because Article 48 of the constitution prohibits the repeal of Article 18 through a ballot question.

After legislators appealed Birmingham's ruling, the joint session held a 20-minute debate that exposed a variety of Beacon Hill views on the democratic process, anti-Catholicism and school vouchers.

Birmingham then called a recess before a vote on his ruling. But when the legislature re-convened, Rogers withdrew his motion. The last move made it theoretically possible for him to re-introduce it when the constitutional convention re-convenes next month.

Later last week, observers had various interpretations about last week's fast-moving developments.

Perla, whose organization is a major part of the larger Citizens for Better Schools coalition, told The Catholic Observer that in conversations last month with the legal counsels for Finneran and Birmingham, he had learned about a real disagreement about the meaning of the constitutional separation of powers.

While acknowledging that Finneran and Birmingham are often seen as political rivals, he said that they have differing views about whether Reilly's certification is necessary to consider an anti-aid amendment repeal petition.

He revealed that U.S. District Judge George O'Toole was asked to rule on the matter by the repeal movement when they heard about Birmingham's expected position.

The move to court by the Becket Fund, which has a larger case to invalidate Amendment 48 on the grounds that it violates the federal Constitution, may have backfired.

Instead of being forced to take up the petition by O'Toole, Birmingham could tell the Boston media last week that the anti-aid matter has been "disposed of" for the year.

According to Perla, Birmingham will support a legislative motion to repeal the anti-aid amendments in the next legislative session.

But that approach, which would place a repeal question on the ballot without any signature gathering, requires a majority vote in both houses of the legislature. And last week's withdrawal of Roger's motion, say several legislators, proves that anti-aid repeal proponents do not yet have the support of most lawmakers.

PACE complained last week about media characterizations of last year's Beacon Hill developments turning into a school voucher debate, pointing out that the repeal movement only allows for the eventual possibility of vouchers or other forms of aid to non-public school students.

But there are recent signs that vouchers are the issue for PACE's opponents. A March 26-27 telephone poll by the Pioneer Institute revealed rising support for school vouchers among a wide spectrum of Massachusetts residents. Fifty-eight percent of those polled, including 58 percent of self-described liberals, said they supported vouchers.

In a clear sign that vouchers have become popular among non-Catholics as well as Catholics, 64 percent of minority respondents said they support vouchers.

But public opinion does not immediately translate into action by the legislature, where powerful lobbying organizations vie for the votes of legislators.

If Birmingham maintains his current position, a vote on repealing the anti-aid amendment would not appear on the ballot until 2004.