Boston Globe. February 25, 2024.

Editorial: To maintain confidence in SJC, nominee should offer clear answers on when she’d recuse herself

Cases involving priorities of Governor Maura Healey are sure to come before the Supreme Judicial Court. If they do, will her former romantic partner be one of the judges ruling on them?

Here are two hypotheticals for Appeals Court Judge Gabrielle Wolohojian, whose nomination to the Supreme Judicial Court is pending before the Governor’s Council. What if Governor Maura Healey’s efforts to force Milton to comply with the MBTA Communities Act ends up before the court? Or Healey’s battle with Steward Health Care over access to the company’s financial records?

Both are cases in which the governor clearly has a political interest in the outcome, regardless of whether her name appears in litigation anywhere. So would either of those scenarios prompt Wolohojian, a past romantic partner of Healey’s, to recuse herself from the case, if they came before her as a member of the SJC? If not, why not? What does Wolohojian see as the appropriate standard for recusal?

Those are questions Wolohojian should address before she is confirmed. She has yet to do so, because members of the Governor’s Council did not ask any such direct questions of her during Wednesday’s confirmation hearing. But the council should not vote on her nomination until they do.

As the Globe editorial board has stated before, Wolohojian’s qualifications for a seat on the SJC are not at issue. But her prior, long-term romantic relationship with Healey raises legitimate questions about the potential for bias when it comes to ruling on cases involving Healey or the executive branch. Asking them is the job of the Governor’s Council, a somewhat obscure elected body that under the Massachusetts Constitution is responsible for providing “advice and consent” to all judicial nominations made by the governor.

The eight-member council had an opportunity to fully probe the recusal issue during Wednesday’s hearing. Instead of doing that, however, the council and Wolohojian tiptoed around what Councilor Tara Jacobs called “the elephant in the room.”

As reported by MASSter List, Jacobs referred to the “open question of what appearance of impropriety, appearance of conflict of interest, or appearance of favoritism” might play into Wolohojian’s nomination, and also noted, “There are optics here and it troubles me.”

To that, Wolohojian responded, “I understand your concern about the optics, but sitting from my chair I have done everything like every other candidate, and I don’t know what else I can do other than do the process that’s been really in place since the Dukakis administration.”

As also reported by MASSter List, Councilor Marilyn Petitto Devaney also posed this vaguely worded question: “So you know, different people have reasons to not be able to vote on certain issues or whatever. Do you see any of that?”

To that, Wolohojian said: “Well, there certainly could be. I — recusal is something that I take very seriously. It’s a two-sided question. There are cases in which you need to recuse yourself, and you do so. And then there are cases where you don’t recuse yourself and you don’t do so.”

Wolohojian said she would recuse herself on a case-by-case basis, without offering any specifics about when recusal might come into play.

It is important that she offer specific answers, though, because how she navigates potential recusals could affect public confidence in the court. Imagine a divided court ruling on a sensitive subject, with the governor’s former partner providing a decisive vote. It is not in the interest of the court, or the Commonwealth, for the SJC’s decisions regarding the administration to come with asterisks in the public’s eye.

Meanwhile, Healey’s handling of the matter has not helped matters. Her announcement of the nomination made no mention of her past relationship with Wolohojian. In that announcement, Healey said “There is no one more qualified or better prepared to serve on the Supreme Judicial Court.” Yet, she relied on an unusually small circle of advisers to select the nominee, undercutting the notion of a broadly based selection process. Healey has also said that Wolohojian does not have to recuse herself from cases involving Healey or the governor’s office and said there are no ethical issues in play. Shouldn’t there be an independent assessment of the potential for judicial conflicts, beyond Healey’s breezy and self-serving conclusions?

Instead of confronting the issue, Healey has done everything she can to avoid it. As reported by CommonWealth Beacon, Jacobs tried at Wednesday’s hearing to ask Healey “about her thought process behind the nomination, but Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll, who chaired the meeting, shut her down, allowing Healey to make her exit.”

SJC rules call for judges to step aside from a case if a judge has a “personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.” And the Code of Judicial Conduct states that judges “shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” While on the Appeals Court, Wolohojian recused herself from all cases handled by Healey when she was attorney general, including cases from after they had ended their romantic relationship. Before any confirmation vote is taken, the public deserves to hear directly from Wolohojian about how she plans to handle recusals if she is appointed to the SJC.

___

Hearst Connecticut Media. February 26, 2024.

Editorial: It’s time for CT to grow up and share resources between towns

Some of the first lessons we try to teach children are the same ones Connecticut has failed to learn.

Lessons about cooperation, empathy and resolving conflicts. Think of Connecticut as a massive sandbox and consider how well each of our 169 towns play along with one another.

If we were shaping Connecticut out of sand in 2024, the result would look nothing like its current version. We are a balkanized state of fiefdoms. Towns cling fiercely to their identities and resist sharing with one another, resulting in some incredibly affluent small towns colliding with cities that have been stifled for generations.

It has been about a century since Connecticut erased county governments. Since the mid-20th century, state officials have been reliably resistant to the theory of “regionalization.” Only a few of Connecticut’s smallest towns have — out of necessity — married the likes of their schools and public health services.

We are not a better state for any of this. It just fuels inefficiencies.

Gov. Ned Lamont is now trying to blur some of the municipal lines that have defined government operations since the 1800s. He promoted proposed legislation Thursday that aims to eliminate the obstacles that often prevent towns from sharing staff and services. Typically, these hurdles come in the form of unions and local charters.

Lamont already has the support of the Council of Small Towns and the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM).

“This bill has a provision in it that just simply says you can’t bargain away service sharing,” CCM Executive Director Joe DeLong said. “You can’t bargain away the ability to help your neighbor.”

As DeLong suggests, this could be a simple solution to a stubborn problem. Lamont seems to have figured out that a key to shepherding this legislation through is to design it as offering possibilities rather than mandates. So some — perhaps many — towns will continue to cling to that tired bromide of “home rule.” Others will realize the benefits of being able to decrease property taxes.

There are a lot of small potential benefits to towns sharing resources. In addition to cost savings, sharing Human Resources staff can, for example, prevent potential conflicts of interest. And it seems as though we’ve been hearing for decades about cities falling behind on building inspections due to a lack of staff.

But success will come if towns become more open to considering ways to share public safety resources, education expertise and – dare we say it – expansion of affordable housing in underutilized regions.

The plan invites unions to the party by offering them the chance to form coalitions. Some Republicans are already voicing support for the concept, which insiders say has been brewing for at least seven years. It would be an ideal initiative to invite bipartisan support.

We are, after all, better neighbors when we work together on common goals. And like the kids in the sandbox, Connecticut has to eventually grow up and have more mature relationships.

___

Boston Herald. February 25, 2024.

Editorial: MIAA can’t look away from transgender issue

Parents are now forced to address yet another harsh truth thrust upon them by the ideological left.

Young girls need to strategize on how to best compete with biological males. It’s now a matter of personal safety. Those male-born players will likely be bigger, stronger, faster, and backed by educators afraid to speak the truth.

So we will.

A reckoning is inevitable. It is time for the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA) to address this matter today before a girl is crippled.

As the Herald has reported, there’s another injury linked to a biological male playing on a girls’ squad.

The coach for the Collegiate Charter School of Lowell girls basketball team ended a recent game against Lynn’s KIPP Academy at halftime, forfeiting the contest after his third player got hurt.

The video of one of the girls getting injured went viral on social media after Riley Gaines — a former college swimmer who’s adamantly against allowing biological males to play girls’ sports — shared the clip online.

The MIAA sent the Herald a statement that only partially addresses the matter: “The MIAA continues to serve as a resource to its member schools as they navigate the facts of the matter at the local level.”

Navigate? Does that include advice on how to avoid ER bills? The MIAA isn’t saying and that’s what’s wrong here.

In November, a Bay State field hockey player had to be taken to the hospital after a biological male’s blistering shot hit her in the mouth. The “traumatic” incident led to shrieks and tears all over the field hockey pitch, we reported.

The Herald has learned that this very issue is being discussed by high school coaches and athletic directors who need to balance what’s good for the kids and what’s politically correct. (Translated, what won’t get them fired.)

That’s where this issue now dwells. Gender must be respected! That’s a must. But what about keeping high schoolers safe? That’s the rub.

A bill making its way through the state Legislature calls for requiring sex education in Massachusetts schools to be inclusive of all identities and use “medically accurate, age-appropriate, and comprehensive” information.

This shows lawmakers are addressing transgender realities — but in sex ed classes.

Students are already talking about this issue so the adults need to give them help. The MIAA must step in and set rules for biological boys playing with biological girls.

Hold hearings and make them open to the public. Seek expert testimony and come to a consensus. Offering up meaningless statements is not helping anyone.

Parents need educators to help them tackle the obvious. Kids should embrace sports and feel comfortable that fairness is the foundation. Healthy habits learned in athletics last a lifetime. This issue must be addressed today so students can navigate life in the field of play.

Injuries can be prevented, but addressing each ad hoc isn’t helping anyone.

“It’s incredibly hard for these schools to protect these girls when they have no jurisdiction to do so,” Gaines said on social media. “The state doesn’t protect these girls.”

It’s time for the MIAA to earn its keep. Hold hearings. Set rules. Let the kids play!

___

Bangor Daily News. February 28, 2024.

Editorial: Maine should join most other states with paramilitary training ban

A majority of U.S. states already have bans on unauthorized paramilitary training, and Maine can join this list while standing on solid constitutional ground.

The Maine House and Senate have narrowly advanced legislation sponsored by Rep. Laurie Osher of Orono that would specifically ban gun and explosive training that is intended “in furtherance of civil disorder.” Lawmakers should pass the legislation, which has been amended to address concerns raised by the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine and others, and Gov. Janet Mills should sign it into law.

There is plenty of weapons training that helps people better prepare to protect themselves and their communities. That is a good thing, and not something that this bill would prohibit. When such training is done with the intent to cause civil disorder, however, it by definition becomes a threat to the community rather than a source of protection.

The amended version of this bill tracks with the tested approach of other states like Vermont. Maine would be the 27th state to take this step. The bill is not targeting speech or ideas, but specific actions with specific intent. It would not ban all firearms or explosives training activities, just those conducted with the aim of causing civil disorder.

In this country, we repudiate extremist speech with our own speech. Beliefs have First Amendment protections. Extreme actions, however, do not necessarily carry the same protections. We regulate dangerous actions intended to cause disorder with laws.

Jacob Glick, who serves as policy counsel at Georgetown University Law Center’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, explained the constitutional considerations well in testimony to the Maine Legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.

“LD 2130’s prohibition on paramilitary training stands on firm constitutional and legal ground. The proposal is consistent with both the United States Constitution, the Maine constitution, and Maine statutes, none of which protect private paramilitary organizations,” Glick told lawmakers in late January. “The restrictions that would be imposed by LD 2130 would be viewpoint neutral and applied to conduct that is protected by neither the First or Second Amendments. The bill does not seek to prohibit freedom of expression, freedom of association, or lawful possession and carrying of firearms. Instead, the bill prohibits paramilitary training activity, including instructing others in deadly tactics for use in a ‘civil disorder.’ This regulation would be both constitutionally permissible and in keeping with state laws across the country that govern private paramilitary activity. It also would provide Maine with an important tool to address the rising threat from paramilitary training camps operated by domestic extremist groups.”

This legislation in Maine followed the saga involving a Neo-Nazi training facility in Springfield. And while that situation demonstrated shortcomings in Maine’s existing anti-militia laws and emphasized the need for further action, it is not the only reason for action. This ultimately isn’t about the beliefs of Neo-Nazis, as abhorrent as those beliefs are. This is about the actions of any paramilitary group, regardless of ideology, that seeks to cause civil disorder.

It is those actions that this bill targets, and it is those actions that Maine should ban by passing this bill into law.

___

Portland Press Herald. February 25, 2024.

Editorial: We cannot get gun safety wrong this time around

Legislative undertakings unveiled Wednesday show promise. There’s no reason to think they will pass, however – or that we can stop there.

A decent start.

That’s how the state-level gun safety legislation unveiled last week was broadly received, even by those who have long advocated for bigger, harder limits on the supply and sale of guns and other measures that seek to prevent gun violence.

“They represent meaningful progress without trampling on anybody’s rights,” Gov. Janet Mills said of her proposals, “and they will better protect public safety.”

While welcoming what has been put forward so far, this editorial board is firmly in the camp left wanting more. On several occasions over the past 12 months – and with appropriate urgency after the devastation caused by the mass shooting in Lewiston in October – we have called for more onerous and sweeping proposals than featured in the latest bill.

The hard truth that prevails, however, is that when it comes to the contentious subject of gun control, some progress is better than no progress. No progress is what we have had to tolerate and live under – with horrifying consequences – for too long.

This bill, L.D. 2224, undertakes to:

• Update the state’s yellow flag law so that it applies more efficiently. • Expand background checks to advertised private firearm sales (not applicable to transfers of guns between family and friends). • Create a program at the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention dedicated to injury and violence prevention, gathering information to assist policymaking that reduces gun suicides and homicides. • Set up a network of “crisis receiving clinics” across Maine – the first, in Lewiston, to be open 24 hours.

By our read, here’s what we’re missing:

• A red flag law, a higher standard in operation in 21 states, allowing families to directly petition the courts to remove a gun from somebody dangerous. • A limit on concealed carry without a permit. • A ban on assault weapons. • A ban on “modification devices” like bump stocks, a proposal for which failed last year. • Universal background checks.

Gov. Mills was applauded in some quarters last week for taking an approach that wasn’t “extreme.” The total horror of Lewiston was assumed by some to have the potential to spur an “extreme” legislative response.

We’re going to repeat ourselves: In the face of sustained gun violence and needless bloodshed, statutory limits on gun procurement and ownership are not extreme.

Background checks on private sales, to give an example of a specific measure up for consideration, was rejected by the Legislature last June. Every Senate Republican and nine Democrats voted it down.

In the aftermath of the vote, we wrote: “More than 100,000 background checks are performed every year in Maine by licensed sellers. Adding the few thousand private sales that occur every year isn’t a lot to ask when considering the tragedy that could be avoided.”

This latest attempt at background checks is weaker than last year’s (a bill already arguably asking the bare minimum) by exempting transfers between friends and family, something that had been a sticking point for the National Rifle Association and paperwork-fearing groups like it.

Hopefully with this concession, and the memory of Lewiston still fresh in the mind, the 20 state senators who voted it down – listed below – will find themselves in a position to vote the other way this time around.

Joe Baldacci (D-Penobscot) Rick Bennett (R-Oxford) Eric Brakey (R-Androscoggin) Chip Curry (D-Waldo) Brad Farrin (R-Somerset) Stacey Guerin (R-Penobscot) Matt Harrington (R-York) Craig Hickman (D-Kennebec) Troy Jackson (D-Aroostook) David LaFountain (D-Kennebec) Jim Libby (R-Cumberland) Peter Lyford (R-Penobscot) Marianne Moore (R-Washington) Tim Nangle (D-Cumberland) Matt Pouliot (R-Kennebec) Cameron Reny (D-Lincoln) Trey Stewart (R-Aroostook) Jeff Timberlake (R-Androscoggin) Mike Tipping (D-Penobscot) Eloise Vitelli (D-Sagadahoc)

END