| Success for the re-introduced Marriage Equality bill will be difficult and will necessitate significant grassroots support. This time around Garden State Equality will have less staff and resources to coordinate activities than it had during the lame duck session in 2010. The Catholic Church hierarchy and social conservative opponents remain implacable, and legislators can be fickle. However, with NY's recent victory and stronger support now from legislators (and their leaders) there is reason to hope. There is also reason to be concerned.
What can happen? In the ideal scenario it passes with a veto-proof majority in both houses and become the law in spite of Governor Christie's opposition. In another scenario it passes without a veto proof majority and can then be vetoed or signed into law by the governor. In a really bad scenario it can fail in one or more houses of the legislature. In terms of the overall M. E. objective, inextricably connected are the Garden State Equality / Lamda Legal lawsuit currently in the lower court, a similar federal lawsuit which originated in San Francisco, a possible vote on the part of New Jerseyans, and a possible federal law.
More on the key scenarios and other options for ME in NJ below the fold.
|
| First a little recent history. During the early 2010 Corzine lame duck period the issue was hotly debated in the Senate. There 21 votes were needed for passage of the M.E. bill (S1967), but only 14 of 40 Senators (35%) voted in favor, including the lone and long-gone Republican Bill Baroni. During the roll call these Democrats were present on the floor but refused to vote: Beach, Sweeney, and Sarlo. These Democrats voted against the bill: Girgenti, Madden, Rice, Sacco, Turner, and Van Drew. In the Assembly had the leaders felt there was a possibility to reach the 41 votes need for passage, they probably would have introduced the bill, but the bill was never brought to committee vote nor to the floor. Now regarding the first scenario. As a result of the November elections the Democrats' edge in the Assembly will increase to 48-32, while their majority in the Senate will remain 24-16. Counting votes on the most sensitive issues is always difficult at best. However, there is certainly no indication that a veto-proof majority, 27 in the Senate and 54 in the Assembly, will be reached. To achieve the ideal scenario, assuming all Democrats voted in favor (unlikely in view of the 2010 Democrats' voting results), would require three Republican Senators and six Republican Assemblypersons to vote favorably. Alternately, for each Democrat who is opposed there would have to be an additional favorable vote from a Republican. Given the penchant for Republicans to vote as their governor dictates, and given the 2010 single Republican favorable vote, the bar for this scenario is too high.
The second scenario - achieving a majority vote in both houses is more likely but still not a slam-dunk, as recent enthusiastic supporter Sen President Sweeney now implies. In the Senate the vote would have to increase from 2010's total of 14 supporters to 21, but we already know that some prior opponents are reconsidering. There are 24 Democrats in the Senate, so three defections could keep the vote positive. With no past voting history on M.E. it's harder to tell about the Assembly, but with 41 votes required for the majority and with 48 Democrats, up to seven defections would still allow a victory. Assembly Speaker Oliver is supportive. This scenario is certainly possible and would be a victory. It would help the effort forward, even in the likely case that Christie uses his pen to veto it. Christie has been consistently opposed to M.E. and a change of mind would gain him no advantage in Republican party circles.
There are other approaches that could lead to Marriage Equality in NJ. The current GSE/LL suit in Trenton State Court quite possibly will be viewed favorably at the Superior Court level, be contested, and at some point arrive in our Supreme Court. Its odds of passage there are probably less than 50-50 because by then Governor Christie will have had an opportunity to fill at least two seats with judges less likely to be favorably disposed. The fate of the federal case originating in San Francisco will likely end up in the Supreme Court where with its current members its fate would probably rest on one swing vote. An "Initiative and Referendum" system as in other states does not exist in New Jersey. For the public to vote on amending the NJ Constitution is cumbersome requiring first either that in a single session three-fifths of both houses concur or that in each of two separate sessions a majority in both houses concur. Finally, I wouldn't hold my breath regarding federal M.E. legislation passing in either the current or next session, not only because of Congress' dysfunction and Republican obstructionism but also because while President Obama's position may be "evolving" as he says, he remains an unenthusiastic M.E. proponent.
Yet another scenario is that although the bill is being introduced (listed as A1 and S1 in the new session), it may never be marked up for vote. Legislative leaders seldom call for a floor vote if they do not have a majority, and without a majority another negative vote would be damaging for NJ M.E. prospects in general and feed into a discouraging State Supreme Court ruling. Without assurance of passage in both houses, the best legislative strategy would be to await a new supportive governor.
Although Sen. Sweeney says, the fight is now with Governor Christie, let's not kid ourselves. The first battle is in the legislature. Proponents are correctly positioning M. E. as a civil rights issue but opponents continue to view it as religious and social evil. For the present only the strongest grassroots effort - a prodding particularly of legislators on the fence - will assure a majority vote in the legislature. |
.gif)
