Supreme Judicial Court rules a chair is more than just a chair when it involves the Governor's Council

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that the lieutenant governor cannot vote to break Governor's Council ties on judicial nominations unless the governor is also in the room.

Deval Patrick had asked the court to figure out what the framers of the state constitution meant when they said the lieutenant governor, who presides over council meetings, would have no vote "except when the chair of the governor shall be vacant."

Patrick argued this meant Tim Murray could break ties when Patrick had more pressing business elsewhere and that it referred to the physical chair the governor would sit in while observing council meetings; the council retorted, no, the founders meant Murray could only vote to break a tie when Patrick was physically present in the council chambers because it was referring to situations in which the lieutenant governor has assumed the role of acting governor, either because the governor has permanently left office before the end of his term or the governor has traveled outside the borders of the commonwealth.

Unlike the last time the court considered judicial nominations, this time, the council won. In a ruling that relates the history of the council dating back to 1629, the state's highest court said "the chair of the governor" refers to the office, not an actual chair.

The question has practical ramifications because the eight-member council, unlike the state Legislature, is fairly evenly split between people who generally support the governor and people who think he is a socialist menace. In 2011, the council tied seven times on judicial nominations. Patrick was out of town for the last vote and was forced to withdraw the nomination, although he later resubmitted it and made a point of being present for the vote on Jan. 4 so that Murray could break the tie.

The court made a point of deciding not to decide the implications of post-19th century technology, such as the telephone - for example, whether the governor could be "present" through a videoconferencing system.

No one has proposed such an arrangement or described in detail how it would work, and without a specific proposal we are unable to opine whether, in those circumstances, the Governor would be considered absent from the chamber within the meaning of [the constitution].

• Complete Opinion of the Justices to the Governor