A state Supreme Court judge in New York will allow a lawsuit against the state’s marriage equality law to move forward, citing concerns about whether officials broke the state’s open meetings law in the lead-up to the vote last June.
Judge Robert Wiggins wrote in a decision on November 18 that the suit, brought forward by the pro-life group New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, could continue because of possible procedural violations by the state Senate and Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) on June 24, the day the Marriage Equality Act was signed into law.
“The Court must consider allegations by Plaintiff as true. Considering Plaintiff’s allegations, and without deciding the matter at this time, the Court feels there is a justiciable issue presented whether there was a violation of the Open Meeting Law,” Wiggins wrote.
New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms filed suit in July, alleging that the Senate Republicans and Cuomo violated the law by holding a number of closed-door meetings in the lead-up to the vote on the 24th, and by not putting the bill through the proper committees.
According to the LoHud blog of the Journal News:
Legislative conferences are always held behind closed doors, and state law exempts political caucuses, committees and conferences from the open meetings law. Also, governors have to ability to bypass a three-day waiting period for a new bill to be voted on by the Legislature by issuing “a message of necessity”–which was the case for the same-sex marriage vote.
Wiggins disagreed with the “message of necessity” in his decision: “Logically and clearly this cite by the Governor is disingenuous. The review of such concept altering legislation for three days after generations of existing definitions would not so damage same-sex couples as to necessitate an avoidance of rules meant to ensure full review and discussion prior to any vote.”
But, he said that this particular part of the decision was accepted by the Senate, and therefore is not the Court’s to overturn. Though Wiggins also added some salty criticism of the maneuvering that went on to get the bill passed: “It is ironic that much of the State’s brief passionately spews sanctimonious verbiage on the separation of powers in the governmental branches and clear arm-twisting by the Executive on the Legislative permeates the entire process.”
