Every citizen has the right to petition the legislature. It is the duty of legislators to assure that petitions of their constituents are duly presented.
When a legislator is approached by a citizen to file a bill that he does not agree with, the legislator files the bill with the label “by request”.
That is the case with Senate Docket 792, now Senate 1060. As you can see at this link, it was filed “by request.”
That bill would repeal the marijuana question. I filed the bill at the request of a constituent although I disagree with it and will oppose it.
On the contrary, I publicly supported Question 4 and have been and will continue to be one of its leading defenders on Beacon Hill.
Incidentally, there are two other bills from the same petitioner SD791 and SD794, which I have also filed “by request”.
Thank you for the clarification. Sorry for jumping to an incorrect conclusion.
Happy to hear that you supported and will defend Question 4.
Thanks for the clarification, I was incredibly concerned when I saw this. Glad to hear the details.
Please continque your suppost to get the Cannibas reform bill passed by the people inacted asap. The people have spoken. I see the bills you have filled against it but none for it.
I was also wondering who has been appointed to the committee on Cannibas reform law
Thank you
The commission has not yet been appointed.
The people have spoken — we don’t need another bill for it. We just need to protect that one.
Well, I suspected as much. Hope you’ve gotten in touch with those who reported this and requested a correction.
I have, but once something crazy like this goes viral, it’s hard to call it back.
why is the petitioner’s name not published in these cases? presumably that individual would be delighted to have it known that they are the one who has put forth the bill in question.
It is published — you can click through to it on the state’s website: Go to the bill through the link and download the pdf of the bill.
aha. thanks!