URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v16/n726/a01.html
Newshawk: http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Wed, 28 Dec 2016
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Copyright: 2016 Globe Newspaper Company
Contact:
Website: http://bostonglobe.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/52
Author: Matt Rocheleau
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE RARE MOVE MASS. LAWMAKERS USED TO DELAY POT SHOPS
Just a half-dozen Massachusetts legislators passed a controversial measure on Wednesday delaying the opening date for recreational marijuana stores in Massachusetts by six months.
How could so few legislators decide such an important issue?
The move, which took less than an hour, was extraordinary, but technically allowed.
Here’s how it works.
First, keep in mind that legislative cycles in Massachusetts run on two-year calendars, beginning in odd-numbered years. So currently, we are at the end of a two-year cycle that began in 2015.
There are two types of meetings lawmakers can hold: formal and informal.
Formal sessions are normally reserved for discussion, debate, and voting on major issues. But there are restrictions as to when they can be held.
During the first year of a legislative cycle, formal business must be wrapped up by the third Wednesday in November.
During the second year of a cycle – such as this year – formal session can be held through the last day in July.
During periods when formal sessions are barred, lawmakers can resort to informal “informals” to get things done.
Informals tend to have sparse attendance and are generally reserved for voting on measures that are noncontroversial, of relatively minor importance, or both. Think bridge names and liquor licenses.
A key reason for that: In an informal session, a measure is not allowed to pass if even a single legislator present voices an objection.
But all that is required for lawmakers to enter informals and pass a measure is to have at least one Republican and at least one Democrat present.
Passing a controversial measure via an informal session has happened before, but it is challenging because it typically requires a lot of behind-the-scenes lobbying and jockeying by lawmakers.
In one example in late 2002, lawmakers passed a bill that shielded outgoing Governor Jane Swift from personal liability in a lawsuit filed by a member of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. That provision was passed as an amendment to an unrelated bill during an informal session that was not televised – two days after Christmas, when only a few lawmakers were in the chamber.
It’s not uncommon for informal sessions to be fairly busy at this time of year, as lawmakers scurry to pass measures before the close of the legislative cycle. But again, the business transactedis generally relatively small potatoes or has broad consensus.
That said, seemingly straightforward measures passed during informal sessions have caused headaches later on.
For example, in December 2014, lawmakers during an informal session quietly passed a law requiring drivers to turn their headlights on in the daytime when the weather impaired visibility.
The measure wasn’t controversial until after it took effect and people noticed that a violation came with a costly insurance surcharge on top of a $5 ticket. The surcharge was later removed during a formal session.
MAP posted-by: