Leave it to the legislature to take a good idea and completely f$%& it up. Here’s what the Elections Committee is voting on (HT alert reader cmoore1):
An Act Relative to Filling a Temporary Vacancy in the United State Senate…
SECTION 1. Section 140 of chapter 54 of the General Laws, as appearing in 2008 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after subsection (e) the following new subsection:-
(f) Upon failure to choose a senator in congress or upon a vacancy in said office the governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill the vacancy; provided, however, that the person so appointed shall serve until the election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill such vacancy pursuant to paragraph (a) or paragraph (c); and provided further, any person so appointed shall be of the same political party as the person vacating the office and thereby creating the vacancy.
For those of you not fluent in legislativese, this bill would let the Gov make an interim appointment, but would require that the appointee be of the same political party as the person who created the vacancy. The bill has no provision for preventing the interim appointee from running in the special election.
Both terrible ideas. We’ve beaten to death the notion that an interim should not be able to run in the special election; suffice it to say that, as I’ve said before, I think an interim appointment is unacceptable without a provision along those lines. And as for this nonsense:
“If the voters wanted a Democrat to serve until 2012, it’s only fair for the interim to be of that party,” said Representative Michael Moran, co-chairman of the committee.
No, no, no. The voters did not want “a Democrat” to serve until 2012. They wanted Ted Kennedy to serve until 2012. The notion that we’re somehow honoring the voters’ intent by requiring that the interim be of the same political party is absurd — did it ever occur to any of these guys that some people don’t automatically vote party line? And hey, why stop at party affiliation? Why not require that the interim appointee pledge to adhere to the same positions Kennedy (or whoever has just vacated the office) had taken on the top three issues of the day, said top three issues to be determined by the Governor?
This is, in short, a terrible bill, and it should be rejected. If the legislature can’t do this right, they shouldn’t do it at all. If you have a moment, call your state Rep and Senator to tell them what you think. Here’s the contact info.
It would awful embarrassing if a Republican got elected Governor and they had to change the law again, wouldn’t it?
You almost get the feeling that thinking like that is actually occurring. Unbelievable.
Last month’s Rasmussen had Mihos leading Patrick 40% to 35%.
<
p>http://www.rasmussenreports.co…
<
p>You folks just might want to think about parachutes on that pedestal you’re on.
Wow the Dems on Beacon Hill must have drank their full cup of ineptitude this morning. I guess Moran and others in a conference collectively decided “hmm the GOP keeps saying we are doing this for political purposes only even though we aren’t, might as well do it for political purposes then right?”
<
p>What a load of garbage. The solution to fixing Beacon Hill isn’t to elect Republicans its to elect better Democrats!
But since we’re not…maybe we should elect non-democrats who don’t have their fingers up to their elbows in the pie.
A governor should not be able to take advantage of a vacancy by appointing an interim from his preferred party. The interim should be of the same party.
to do the wrong thing.
<
p>A prompt special election has been scheduled. Let the seat be vacant for a little bit, and we will survive.
The problem with this is that here in Massachusetts even our Republicans are Democrats. A Republican Governor would have little trouble finding a Democrat with whom he or she would be ideologically aligned.
I’ve said several times I like Wyoming’s same party requirement, and I’m perfectly OK with the appointee running again as this may provide incentive to work hard and be responsive rather than just run out the clock. I actually like these provisions very much.
But you’re wrong. đŸ˜‰
At the end of the term filled by the special election.
<
p>I’d be cool with that.
I’m still not on board with the proposed prohibition on an interim Senator running in the general (which I know has been talked about at length here at BMG). As with term limits, the fundamental problem with it remains that we should be giving voters more choices, not restricting them. This bill chooses not to restrict voter choice, so I have little problem with that omission.
<
p>And as far as the party requirement goes, it does not seem to be particularly objectionable. After all, several states do this already, so it is not like it’s a novel or radical concept. More importantly, while true that voters voted for Ted Kennedy and not a generic Democrat, to say that an average Dem would represent the views of Kennedy closer than an average Republican is certainly a reasonable assumption to make. Further, why should MA voters be represented by a (potentially) right-wing leaning interim Senator if they rejected a Republican in the previous Senatorial election, and indeed have rejected right-wing Republicans for federal offices for many years?
<
p>I understand that this can be, and should be, viewed as a partisan bill. But if it’s such an egregious power-grab, than the Massachusetts Republican Party should be able to take advantage of it. If they cannot, than that is their problem. I think consistent 90% majorities in the state legislature entitle the majority party to enact a partisan agenda.
<
p>Is this a bill that could be improved? Perhaps. But a “terrible” bill? I don’t see it.
I’m hopeful that this is either amended in committee or from the floor to put in a special election restriction. I would want, at least, a commitment that the appointed senator would not run in the special. That is what Teddy wanted.
<
p>There are two reasons I would like this. The first is political. It looks like the governor is appointing the incumbent in the special. Personally, I don’t think the appointee would have any advantage, but I think it looks bad. The second reason is that I want the appointee working in the Senate and not spending their time running in the special.
<
p>I think the ‘same party’ thing is an unnecessary distraction. I don’t think it will have a material effect since you can find the entire political spectrum among current Democrats. Also, what is to prevent the potential appointee switching parties at the last minute and switch back after they are seated?
I’m not sure I follow your defense of a proposed restriction on interim senators running again. I’m not sure why it looks bad to have the governor appoint an interim senator in the case of a vacancy. As far as having the appointee working in the Senate and not spending their time running in the special, well, that’s (legitimately or not) a criticism of our entire current representative system. Representatives and Senators alike enter office already thinking about their next election, and yet manage to do the public’s business as well. Further, I’d rather have a person in office who is at least thinking about the possibility of running again — otherwise, we’d be represented by somebody without any regard about what the public thinks.
<
p>The party issue is where an amendment to the current bill might be justified. I’d prefer something closer to the Wyoming/Utah provisions that requires the Governor to pick someone from a list provided by the party committee of the vacating Senator. That way, we avoid the problem of the Governor picking a Democrat who is really a Republican.
Per your post:
<
p>
<
p>Isn’t that the POINT of this bill? To have somebody willing to vote the ‘right’ way on issues? Ted’s way? Five years passed since the law was changed, but nobody was concerned – including the fatally ill Sen. Kennedy – until it looked like there wouldn’t be 60 votes on health care (OT – are you guys counting on Lieberman there?).
<
p>The people unwilling to wait until a special election ARE the Democrats. There is no shame, no bottom they will not stoop to, to gerrymander for their party.
<
p>This SURPRISES you?
<
p>(Double OT – has the ‘interim’ been instructed how to vote if the wind farm comes up?)
<
p>Perhaps, PP, but you know as well as I do that if the shoe was on the other foot, the Republicans would do exactly the same thing to gain the political upper-hand.
I’m sorry, but I doubt it. We had the chance in the Saltonsall/Furcolo years, and didn’t.
But that doesn’t make it okay for Democrats.
<
p>Both parties are equally despicable and dishonorable.
<
p>But the issue at hand has to do with the Democrats, so stop playing the straw man and coming up with scenarios that don’t currently exist.
<
p>That’s what the feeble-minded do.
Why don’t you study the Texas redistricting situation earlier this decade before you tell me that I’ve created a “straw man” and that similar situations don’t exist.
<
p>Ignorance of history and naivete have little place in political analysis.
Was against wind farms.
Cue the violin music…
…brought to you by the party that stole two presidential elections, is doing everything possible to nullify the last one, and would burn down the Reichstag if there was five dollars of profit in it.
You cut me to the quick, PP!
<
p>Seriously, I have been very clear about my position on this from day 1. That you are “surprised,” pleasantly or not, that I would actually stick to my guns is, well, surprising to me. Do you actually think we’re as unprincipled as … well, I won’t go there. đŸ˜‰
Not to insult you, David, but you and I often reason the same way. We are both rather more interested in process and government than issues and politics. (We were once before on the same side of an issue – you were castigated by your people for admitting a vote was proper, I was castigated by mine for thinking a vote was not only proper, but probably wouldn’t go the way they thought it would).
<
p>I did not have you in mind as poster, but some of the responses in the thread, like ones not mentioning the Reischdag fire.
<
p>For example, the issue of party – which eliminates the actual majority of qualified candidates, no matter which party holds the Corner Office – was raised by a commenter and is brilliant and thoughtful.
<
p>To me, the violation here isn’t merely partisan. It’s a hack-ish disrespect of government, which you and I do respect. Law should be thoughtful, deliberate and necessary. This situation arose because the Lege wanted to huzzah President Kerry. After the shiny balloon popped, the children lost interest. Now, five years later, they redirect their attention again, based on a single issue which may or may not come up for a vote before the election is held, and may or may not pass by a single vote instead of succeeding or failing by a half-dozen. The sheer hubris of rewriting law to try to game a potential situation is sickening. Not only do hard cases make bad law, so do vivid imaginations.
<
p>I am unsurprised by your steadfastness, but I am pleasantly surprised by the serious consideration of unintended consequences demonstrated by some on BMG. It’s a pity they aren’t legislators.
<
p>As my friend Christy Mihos said about the Legislature the other day, “They count votes there, not I.Q.’s”
who specifically stated that he didn’t want anyone appointed to the position to run for it in the special election.
<
p>If this bill does pass, it should be vetoed by the Governor. Better to let the seat remain vacant than pervert the democratic process in this way.
<
p>Not only should this bill not be passed, it should be vetoed by the Governor if it does pass.
<
p>I wonder how many seats the Republicans will peel off in the next election if the legislature keeps playing games like this. It almost makes one want to raise some money for the MA GOP. Almost.
There is always hope.
<
p>First of all, I would note that it is hardly established that the democratic process is “perverted” by this bill. Indeed, as noted elsewhere, it places more choice in the hands of the voters to decide who to represent them. Consider a future situation in which an interim senator is appointed and ends up being a legislative superstar, perfectly representing the interests of the majority of Massachusetts voters. Why shouldn’t voters have a chance to put this person back in office?
<
p>On a much more partisan note, I’d fully concede that the rapid changing of the law from the Romney era to today is a partisan enterprise. But given the importance of the 60th vote in the Senate for health care reform, is it really worth giving the minority Republicans the right to kill health care reform via filibuster simply because we feel that we must (to paraphrase a certain Supreme Court Justice) fight according to Marquess of Queensberry Rules while the Republicans fight freestyle?
<
p>Granted, if the Democrats really were perverting the democratic process in some way by doing this, then you’d have a point. But the bill itself hardly falls in this category. It is a partisan bill, which you would expect (and frankly encourage) a party with a 90% majority in the legislature to pass. And it’s even an improvement over the current law.
This isn’t about Senator Kennedy. If the only reason we’re doing this is to comply with his proverbial last request we shouldn’t be doing it at all. As far as I’m concerned we elected a Governor and the Governor is within his rights to play favorites. If the people don’t like it the term won’t last longer than three months, most of which is likely to be recess anyway.
I really do not think he wanted partisan politics to be his legacy. This is what you people are doing to his memory.
While I agree with your sentiment that appointees should not run in special elections, I think you’re probably wrong about Kennedy.
<
p>Kennedy said he wanted the governor to obtain an “explicit personal commitment” from his appointee that he would not run in the special election. It would seem to me that Kennedy implied that the bill should not include a provision that prevented the appointee from running.
I find it hard to get very worked up about this. Is it really better to risk having no Senator until next year or to get one under an imperfect law?
<
p>I do agree that the “same party” rule is not a good idea. Imagine if some day we elect a Senator from some fringe party with very few members. Do we really want to require the interim Senator to come from that party? I don’t think so.
<
p>Personally, I think the Governor should be able to appoint anyone who meets the qualifications.
<
p>
is not necessarily the quiet shift in what the actual bill will do, more that this absolutely plays into the hands of what people say Beacon Hill politicians do. These Reps need to learn their lesson… Polls showed people wanted Kennedy’s proposal done… this is not that proposal. They came out with a proposal that would do what Kennedy intended… held a hearing… things were looking up, and then we get this. It’s really an insult.
<
p>Is it a big deal, policy wise? Probably not. But that’s not the point. Beacon Hill just needs to stop pulling this kind of nonsense — all it does is cement distrust of government and cynicism, which in turn hurts government’s ability to do shit effectively.
if the seat is vacated by an independent? Since independents don’t a have a party, nobody would qualify to fill the seat.
In Massachusetts. I imagine you mean to say “unenrolled”.
i meant to say unenerolled
The language of the bill doesn’t account for unenrolleds. It assumes membership in a party.
Screw ability anyways!
practical thinking has no place here.
I would go by which party the vacating incumbent caucused with for the purposes of committee assignments, etc. plus dispense with the requirement in the event of someone like Arlen Specter, elected as one party, but switched to the other midterm.
Yes, it’s a terrible bill. Yes, it’s embarrassing to all involved. It should pass anyway. The seat needs to be filled, and filled now. When your quarterback fumbles the handoff, you cover the ball, try to retain possession, and hope you can move it up a bit without the referee seeing.
<
p>Sometimes the best deal is the deal that’s on the table.
<
p>This is why we need new leadership.
and Joe Lieberman died or had to leave office suddenly, then the Governor would have to replace him with someone from the “Connecticut for Lieberman” party (which BTW was taken over by anti-Lieberman people).
A reading of the proposed bills (credits to Jon Keller) is that the earliest a nominee could be proposed by the governor would be 12/9/2009, one day after the deadline for independent candidates to declare. Looking around at NE (Sanders, Lieberman) we have 2 out of 12 senators who don’t belong to either party, so trivializing independents in the bills won’t fly.
<
p>So what you’re looking at is the absolute earliest that the interim senator could even be nominated would be 12/9, giving them a lifespan of 47 literal days to 1/26/2010. You’re also talking about holiday recess, so this appointment isn’t exactly going to be in any position to do much (unless you can somehow talk Reid into postponing any major votes for about 3 months from now). Is this push really necessary given the realities of how long they can actually serve, given the self-imposed timing?
could be attached by the legislature during engrossment, and the bill would be in effect upon the signiture of the Governor, or in 10 days without his signiture.
isn’t the issue; if you’re trying to get around court challenges by stating that the appointment can only take place after it is impossible for the appointee to file papers for the interim election, you’re back in the same place. Doesn’t matter when the bill is signed.
<
p>Interested in the basis of that speculationn. I am assuming the “could” is based on the possiblity that there “could” be all kinds of possible ways to postpone or delay votes in the House or Senate.
<
p>Of course the House and Senate also “could”, under the rules, debate and pass a bill with all kinds of amendments and an emergency preamble and get it on the governor’s desk in a few hours.
one way being proposed to get around challenges to “if nominated, you can’t run” was to have the appointment take place after the final deadline for running in the interim election. Hence anyone nominated by the governor would presumably not have filed to run. Problem is that 12/8 is the last day for an independent to declare (and given that 2 of the 12 senators in New England are such beasts, not a hypothetical circumstance). Therefore if that was the way proposed to handle the issue, then Gov. Patrick couldn’t make a nomination until after 12/8. If that is the scenario, then the adoption date of the bill wouldn’t matter if that language was in place (can’t nominate until after impossible to file to run in the special election).
Matt Visor writes otherwise in this piece in this morning’s Globe.
<
p>He says:
<
p>Later in the piece, he adds:
<
p>We need to get this done. Now.
Lets change the constitution for expediency’s sake anytime we feel like it.
<
p>This is horrible and a true progressive wants fairness and equality in the process just as much as the want fairness and equality in the outcome.
<
p>besides at this point an interim Senator has what a month of legislating before the December recess and for what a 60th vote on the Baucus bill?
<
p>Health care reform is dead with or without our Senator. And even if it was viable, completely changing the process of replacing a Senator to vote for just one bill, no matter how important, is just plain wrong.
The legislature enacted a bad bill in 2004 and will hopefully fix it now.
<
p>While the health care bill is vital, the impact of an empty seat goes far beyond this one bill.
<
p>Speaking of changing the constitution for expediency’s sake, I’d rate the 22nd amendment at the top of that list — with horrible consequences.
<
p>The lege should change this law NOW, Governor Patrick should appoint an interim Senator NOW, and we should all move on.
How is a two term limit a bad idea?
then FDR would have been ineligible to run.
<
p>Do you think the result would have been better or worse for America?
1) Two terms is makes sense from a republican (small r) perspective
<
p>Washington set the precedence, every other President except FDR followed it (for justifiable reasons), but Madison and others feared concentrating power in the hands of one man. The four-term precedence FDR established, along with other broad interpretations of executive authority lead to the unitary executive/executive primary theories of constitutional jurisprudence that have been grossly abused by every post-war president along with the imperial presidency that we can only look to Dubya to see how this was abused. And it is the power that corrupts the man just as much as it is the corrupt man that abuses the power. So I think two-terms is fine
<
p>2) Other ramifications
<
p>The Republicans were openly angry about the 22nd amendment because they then had a popular incumbent in Ike who would have likely beaten JFK for a third term, bowed out for health reasons after three, and then given nixon three or more terms. Not to mention Regan would have enjoyed a third term as well. So it might have helped our party once but it would not have helped us in the long run.
<
p>3) I’d have voted for FDR’s opponents
<
p>With the exception of Hoover, I’d have voted for langdon, wilikie, and dewey because they were actually quite liberal, just as internationalist on WWII, pro-New Deal, but they would have also allowed themselves to be constrained. unlike FDR (see court packing)
It seems to me that essence of republican (small r) philosophy is that citizens delegate power to their government, rather than vice-versa. In my view, that argues against rather than in favor of term-limits. Specifically, if a majority of voters wanted Eisenhower for a third time, then he should have been eligible to run.
<
p>In more recent history, I think Bill Clinton would have wiped the floor with Bush 43, and I think America and the world would have been much better off in that scenario.
<
p>I don’t know if JFK would have beaten Eisenhower or not. I also don’t know whether the outcome would have been better or worse for America if that had transpired. I think the civil rights movement would have happened anyway. Many of the seeds of the Viet Nam conflict were planted by JFK — many more were perennials planted during WWII (when Ho Chi Minh was an ally and a good-guy). I think I could make an argument that a third-term President Eisenhower would have avoided involving the US in Viet Nam in a way that JFK (and LBJ after him) did not.
<
p>I’m not sure Richard Nixon would ever have been elected president (or, for that matter, dog-catcher) in the absence of LBJ’s duplicity about Viet Nam.
<
p>So — all in all — I think anyone except FDR in 1940 would have been a disaster, and I think Bush 43 in 2000 was a disaster. I think the other elections were tossups where the counterfactuals can be made to tilt either way.
<
p>Ultimately, I think term limits are a bad idea. I think that in a republic (small r), it is up to voters to decide whether a candidate should or should not remain in office. I am quite sure that Bill Clinton would have been far preferable to Bush 43. So sure that wrote him in when I voted in 2000 (Mr. Gore did not need my popular vote here in Brookline).
Obviously we can’t say for sure what would have happened. I would argue Clinton would have lost to Dubya since the election would have been a referendum on Monica. He had higher approval ratings in part because most people knew he was going to be gone. But again it’s a moot point.
<
p>For the most part I agree with you that term limits tend to be a bad idea when it comes to legislatures (see California) but I tend to favor them for executives. With an imperial presidency so much power is invested in one man that we cannot risk letting him stay there for too long, even with our consent. Just look at how Nixon abused the power of incumbency to rig an election he knew he was going to win anyway, imagine what a world without term limits could enable.
<
p>Also FDR’s death less than a year in office confirms the fact that you don’t want an aging and infirm President still hanging around. Ike with his heart trouble and Reagan with his alzheimer’s would have likely died in their third terms (considering the stress involved) or otherwise been incapable of fulfilling their duties.
<
p>Also for the record I would prefer all of FDRs opponents to any of the Republicans and frankly most of the Democrats running today, they were clearly to his left on most of the important issues from presidential power, to civil rights, to foreign policy, and I Wilikie and Langdon were even to his left on the new deal (they ran seeing it didnt do enough!). Dewey in 44′ might have been a disaster since he was still an isolationist and an Old Right New Deal opponent. Dewey in 48′ wouldn’t have been that bad although Harry Truman is my personal favorite President so I don’t think I’d have voted for him.
Mr. Clinton’s approval ratings went up, not down, in response to the GOP smear campaigns. The GOP attempts to smear him with Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Whitewater, and all the rest strengthened, rather than weakened, Bill Clinton’s standing with the public. We will never know how he might have handled the Monica Lewinsky scandal if he had been eligible to run for re-election in 2000. What we do know is that he is among the most talented and skilled politicians of the twentieth century. I think Bill Clinton would have embarrassed Dubya.
<
p>I’ll defer to our historians about FDR’s opponents. I’m reasonably certain that Mr. Wilkie ran as Republican (and, if I recall correctly, switched parties to do so) in order to get on the ballot at all.
<
p>The health problems of Ike and Reagan would have been campaign issues. Were it not for the extraordinary love of FDR and WWII winding down, I suspect FDR would have had trouble.
<
p>I think Nixon’s criminal behavior had nothing to do with term limits.
<
p>I think this is referring to another bill, not the one printed by the Globe. That bill would delay the appointment until after the deadline to submit papers. There are two deadlines, one to submit for certification and one to submit certified papers. I think you could argue that if the first deadline is not met, then the second is moot. That deadline is Oct 20th for anyone in a party and Nov 24th for unenrolled. So I think it depend on the status of the appointee. If the appointee is a Democrat, which seems likely, then he could be appointed on Oct 21st. Anyone who is a registered Democrat is prohibited from running as unerolled and it is already past the deadline to change parties (which was August 5th).
<
p>I think this would be a lot better than waiting until Jan 21st. Personally I’m happy with the bill requiring that the appointee pledging not to run in the special. I think the chances of someone breaking that pledge and then winning the special are slim.
The is the bill that will be before the House tomorrow.
I have no idea where Keller’s theory about deadlines fits in here. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Of course procedural delays can delay final approval particularly under Senate Rules.
<
p>
We don’t need a third round of repair on this bill. It needs to be done right — and now. No excuses. Otherwise, it’s just feeding into the cynics.
Wisconsin, I think, is one. Are there any others? Has that particular provision ever been tested in court?
I don’t know if it’s been challenged in court. WY specifically requires the state committee of the relevant party to nominate three candidates from which the Governor makes the final selection.
Last time, that is. He wrote a letter asking the law be changed to the way it is right now. Let’s honor his memory.
Then trash it and start over. For whatever reasons.
does any other state include a provision that says the interim appointee cannot run?
that prevents appointed candidates from running. I’m not sure if that’s banning them, or banning governors from appointing anyone running for the position.
On the 11 pm news this evening, Channel 5 news reported that it has learned that the bill has enough votes to pass the state legislature.
Democrats shouldn’t be actually doing what their opponents are always accusing them of doing; Jon Keller was practically foaming at the mouth (before I turned off the radio).
<
p>In a state that has a Democratic governor and a majority in the State House, why is this even necessary? The concerns that people are trying to address with problematic legislation — filling the interim slot with someone appropriately sympathetic, and with someone who won’t run in the special election — could be addressed by (the Governor) appointing the right person (e.g., Dukakis). Why go a bridge too far?
The leg f—ed it up big time. Twice. The Blago situation and in my view the 17th amendment show us why gubernatorial appointments are bad. The special election is 100 days, I see no reason why the gov can’t appoint an interim for that same period of time. Its clear the Dems on beacon hill in the words of PP would rather play partisan games than get the job done. Frankly with the way my own Rep Brownsberger is ignorant of this whole bill and process I might be tempted to vote for his opponent (if he actually has one this year).
<
p>I am a process person first. BrooklineTom and the We Need Two crowd is stupid. The rabid partisanship and ideology of some people on these forums is disgusting. If it were up to them the Patriot Act would deport birthers, we would unseat Wilson, and some would even ban the GOP. I for one, agree with Churchill and say that democracy for all its flaws is still the best thing we got. I think the vote should be fair and proper and the replacement should be fair and proper. If the leg isn’t mature enough to do that then it doesn’t deserve to be in power.
I look at Senator Kennedy’s empty seat and I see Mike Dukakis now and Deval Patrick later. You apparently see an empty seat, “rabid partisanship” and me as “stupid”.
<
p>I think all of us have work to do, I think a huge part of the difficulties we face to today is that too many of our elected leaders ducked too many difficult challenges for far too long.
<
p>Maybe I am stupid. Stupid or not, I disagree with your assessment and your resulting proposed action (or lack of action).
I am sorry for calling you stupid, you clearly are not, I am simply saying the idea that a short term vote, even on an important piece of legislation justifies going around the rule of law is in my humble opinion quite stupid and downright anti-democratic.
<
p>I do not want this appointment to hand the Kennedy’s another seat, and Vicki has not ruled out either running or accepting an appointment, were she to accept the appointment while committing not to run I could easily see a ‘draft’ effort spring up ‘forcing’ her to change her mind. That in of itself is problematic.
<
p>Then we have this ‘same party’ crap which in my view subverts the will of the voters by giving an advantage to the same party in the upcoming election while also disenfranchising any independent who might have been elected Senator and the voter that brought him into office.
<
p>Lastly the rabid partisanship is from those who because they are liberal Democrats have no problem with the system being gamed to ensure that their preferred candidates are swept into the Senate to vote on legislation they want and to ensure that their preferred candidates have an advantage going into the special. Its that same partisanship that stripped Romney of his appointment power in 2004 and that is now trying to give Patrick that power back, albeit temporarily.
<
p>With a few exceptions (David, Christopher, myself and a few others) most of the supposedly ‘progressive’ minded people on this blog support the partisanship, the gamesmenship, and the subversion of republican democracy by this state legislature because it suits their short term aims and goals (mainly passing healthcare) and I think that logic is undemocratic and wrong.
<
p>The ipso facto nature of this whole debate is also incredibly problematic in my view since the legislature had at least two years to change this provision after being informed of Senator Kennedy’s terminal condition. It’s not like we knew he wasn’t going to die it was just a question of when. Yet we irresponsibly put it off, even when he requested it knowing death was near, until after his death wasting the entire purpose of filling the vacancy. By the time this thing passes the leg and is signed we will likely have 50-70 days left with a vacancy, 20 of which will be spent on the holiday recess. It is also likely healthcare will come to a vote before hand removing even the short term benefit of this appointment. I support the appointment because it is the principled and right thing to do, to ensure both a continuity of representation as well as a democratic choice. You and others could care less about that and only want to support a public option which wake up call, is dead with or without this appointee’s vote.
<
p>A special election followed by a temporary appointment is the best solution period. This rush to pass flawed and undemocratic legislation for short term (and nebulous at that) policy gains is incredibly foolish and decidedly un-progressive.
to discriminate based on political affiliation?
<
p>At least, I’d think a law that discriminates based on political affiliation should be discriminatory.
<
p>The problem I have with this is that the “incumbent” can easily just vacate his seat about a year before his term is up and he is retiring. Then the governor can appoint somebody of that same party. Because that person has the experience already, they will have an edge in the election, thus making it very difficult for the seat’s party to ever change.
<
p>It probably doesn’t matter here in Massachusetts right now, but it might at some point.
<
p>Does anybody know where I can get the voting record for this bill? I just want to see how my Representative voted.