Her website says it was "not in proper form."

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagoterm...king&csid=Cago

(Second from the bottom)

Can anyone shed some light on this?

More info is here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...96/index3.html

I'd comment on it more but at this point I am still too outraged to respond unemotionally.

Skallagrim

So what is "proper form" supposed to mean?

Thanks. I don't blame you.

Welcome to Massachusetts politics! Please do not bring reason or logic to any arguments, especially to the awesome Attorney General. Half the politicians in the state get indicted, but good old Martha can't find anything wrong. She'll find a reason to kill the internet poker ballot question. You guys must have had her really thinking that would pass, usually those are the questions she finds reasons to kill off if she doesnt like it.

On the positive side for MA residents, Martha Coakley is running for Ted Kennedy's seat, so feel free to vote for anyone else in the race.

Looking at the list of 15 signatures (at least 10 are required?), there's 7 Lam's, 3 Castonguay's, and 2 Staiti's. Would that be the issue?

It doesnt matter even if that was the case. She'd just have picked something else.

If they're registered voters why should it matter?

It wasn't the names of the voters.

The excuse, as John Pappas said in his post, was over a minor discrepancy between two provisions. One provision referred to "registered" money-transfer services, and one provision referred to "licensed" money-transfer services. In the AG's opinion, the distinction between these two words is so vast that the Initiative could not be properly understood or rendered into "plain language." We provided a 20 page memorandum countering this specious argument from every perspective. It did no good.

Politics was behind this result, nothing else.

Skallagrim

Yup, that's our Martha.

so why didn't we just change the wording of the bill? or is it too late now and it doesn't matter?

this

The courts have oversight don't they?

There is provision that allows for an appeal to Single Justice of the MA Supreme Court. We are exploring that option, but it doesn't look promising.

As to changing the wording, that was the worst and most horrendous "catch-22" of the whole process. A provision exists to correct "clerical errors" but it only applies after a petition is certified. The AG actually said that we cant use this provision because she cant be sure what we would "correct" until we actually ask for it, and we cant ask for it now, and so she still cant say if "registered" and "licensed" mean the same thing, nor if it would matter if they don't.

Slime.

Skallagrim

Yup, that's what Im getting at. It doesnt matter how the ballot question was designed. Martha, or someone with influence over Martha, has decided they dont want internet poker in MA, so the ballot question was getting axed. It didnt matter what the PPA did, a technical error would have been found.

Seriously is there any way to get media pressure on this. This is such a horrible abuse of power it's not funny.

The ballot questions were submitted properly and the signatures are all good too. The "form" is just their formal excuse. Essentially, she concluded that because the proposed law uses "register" in one section and later "license" in the section imposing the 5% fee, she could not fairly and accurately summarize the impact of the proposed law for the voters. Her conclusion is as follows:

"We simply cannot determine whether, if the proposed law were enacted, any financial services providers would be required to make the 5% payment to the Commonwealth. The 5% payment requirement is a significant feature of the proposed law that, in my judgment, must be addressed in the "fair, concise summary" required by Article 48, so that voters will know what they are being asked to support. Yet, because of the way the proposed law is drafted, I cannot determine with certainty how that summary should read."

For the last two weeks our attorneys in MA went back and forth on this language issue with lawyers from the AGs office and last week we submitted a very comprehensive breif explaining why this concern was bogus (in more lawyerly terms of course). Nevertheless the AG still declined. If I can figure out how to post their letter to us (its a pdf) i will.

Is there any way to get "Martha" on the Leach list?

She's running for Senator. The PPA should openly campaign against her. The danger there though is if she loses she's going to totally **** over MA poker players as AG

No one cares, there is a story like this on the front page of the Herald 4 days out of 5. People bitch and moan, but its a one party state. If you have a D next to your name, you win.

LOL, on hoping the media will pressure a Liberal Democrat.

If she's running for Senator, then she would want Barney's backing. Mmmm

I doubt he gets involved in Senate race endorsements.

Now if Barney runs, and i doubt he will, but IF he does we need to get him elected.

He said he's not going to run for the seat, read it somewhere today. I'll see if I can find it.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/..._will_not.html

Frank says he will not run for the senate seat because he has important work to do in the house.