The provision to keep the seat in the same party’s hands was amended:
The original legislation would have required the governor’s appointee, who would serve until a Jan. 19 special election, to be of the same political party as the person who previously held the office.
But late this afternoon, House lawmakers struck that provision by an 89-68 vote, after concerns were raised that such a requirement may be unconstitutional. Democrats broke with DeLeo and joined Republicans to support the measure.
Please share widely!
Rep. Brownsberger and Rep. Toomey
I get there is a concern about partisanship, but those of us who support Democratic candidates and the Democratic party do so so that things we care about come to pass. We want to win. Trying to stay above partisanship doesn’t work when the other side owns and deploys entire media outlets to spread disinformation. It just means milder and milder stands will be labeled partisan, moving the dialog to the right. We lose. So let’s own and be proud of our partisanship. Let’s go win on healthcare and energy legislation, even if it means employing every partisan tactic we can come up with. Believe me, the deathers, the birthers, gun nuts, Faux news, Rush Limbaugh and their Congressional Republican lap dogs won’t be holding back.
Roll call of House vote on interim Kennedy replacement.
Ehrlich, Tom Stanley.
<
p>Harriet Stanley punted (voted present).
<
p>Where was Jay Kaufmann? He doesn’t look to have been there. Family matter or illness or ducking?
<
p>This bill definitely split progressives – there was a spirited debate about it at Arlington DTC with some members vehemently opposed but others as strongly in favor.
Glad to see the provision requiring that the appointee be of the same party as the previous Senator was struck down. Seems unnecessarily controlling when this is a temporary appointment until the special election is held — and a Governor could always appoint someone who shares his/her ideology who happens to be nominal a member of the previous Senator’s party (liberal Republican or conservative Democrat). Might as well let them appoint the person they want for this temporary position and live with it.
<
p>Also, it’s not clear to me whether there’s anything to prevent the appointee from running in the special election. I like the idea of making the appointment after the filing deadline — true, it takes longer to fill the vacancy, but it seem like something that would have no constitutional objections.
<
p>As follows:
<
p>Interim is selected after the filing deadline from the pool of candidates who are not running in the special election?
<
p>As it stands, in the future, we can reasonably expect Governors to try to give the seat to a favored replacement by making an interim appointment before the deadline for the special election.
From what I heard, many think the 17th amendment only allows the legislature to empower the Governor, not to restrict who s/he is allowed to appoint. Other states have restrictions, but apparently the Supreme Court has never ruled on it.
The 17th amendment says, in relevant part,
<
p>
<
p>”As the legislature may direct” strikes me as a pretty broad grant of authority to the legislature, including the ability to “direct” that the Governor act only within certain criteria.
With respect to the legislature’s ability to ‘direct’ the appointment by restricting the governor’s ability to appoint certain people. I am unaware of any other more general constitutional provisions dealing with a state governor’s appointment powers. But I disagree with your opinion that the legislature also has the power to ‘direct’ the election by disregarding established constitutional election principles for purposes of the special election. If a state legislature cannot restrict an incumbent’s ability to run in a general election then why could they in a special election? Could they also ‘direct’ that a person under the constitutionally required age be allowed to be elected? Could they ‘direct’ that no women, blacks, Germans, Muslims, or Republicans be allowed to be elected? Could they ‘direct’ that only white property owners are allowed to vote in a special election? How far does the vague power to ‘direct’ the appointment and special election go in your opinion? I would argue that it doesn’t trump or override other constitutional rules.
It seems to me that “as the legislature may direct” modifies “fill vacancies by election”. If it were intended to modify “make temporary appointments” the phrase in question should have come immediately afterward.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
Unless the governor appoints a latter day Jefferson Smith ala Frank Capra, what exactly is this placeholder going to do except keep his mouth shut and raise his hand when told to? A nominee going in for 4 months with no chance of running better have some good books or games on their Blackberry because they are going to be the ultimate invisible man in the Senate, and for good reason.
Which is why Dukakis is such an intriguing option for the interim. Not only does he (likely) have little interest in running for the seat long-term anyway, but as a former presidential nominee he is a known quantity and may have a bit more “juice” than your typical four-month replacement.
what will happen when the Duke discovers what’s going behind the scenes with his pet “Willow Creek High Speed Rail” project.
I have mixed feelings about the “same-party” requirement. I totally agree it seemed like party-machine hackery by the Democrats, and we’re probably better off without it (especially if it’s unconstitutional).
<
p>I do think there’s an argument to made in its defense, though. If the Senate were much more closely split, so that one caucus member would swing chamber control, there would be enormous pressure on a Republican governor to appoint someone to make that swing happen, even if only for a few months.
<
p>Most voters vote party-line (except apparently for Governor), so it’s not unreasonable to suggest they would prefer a Democrat, even if in name only, be appointed to keep control of the chamber.
<
p>Moot point now, I suppose.
<
p>It should read ‘This is great news! Soon Massachusetts will have 2 votes in the US Senate. PERIOD.
<
p>This is about continuity of representation will preserving democratic choice, this has nothing to do with health care reform or climate change, and those supporting this law for short term consequences should understand the long term consequences of this law (say when another important vote comes up with a GOP governor, a more closely divided Senate, etc.) and be willing to live with them.
<
p>If say Gov. Baker appoints UN Ambasador Kerry’s replacement with Lt. Gov Scott Brown and this is in a closely divided Senate and it shifts control to the GOP, albeit temporarily, then there should be not complaints from Joel, BrooklineTom, We Want Two or any other ‘progressive’ that favored this change for short term partisan reasons instead of for a more progressive process. I hope that same coalition doesn’t demand the legislature change it back so that Gov. Baker can’t have his rightful appointment.
<
p>Also once we change it today let us keep it that way for good. No more playing games with something incredibly important in the words of my other state’s Governor ‘A Senate seat is a pretty f—ing valuable thing’
are longterm good things, just as extending voting rights to people of all colors and creating social security were good things for decades and decades.
I am not opposing those things or claiming that they also do not have long term benefits, I am saying changing the law and the process merely to allow for partisan votes in the short term to me betrays the entire idea of a progressive process in government.
<
p>Would you support changing the law back to prevent a Republican governor from appointing a Republican Senator who might be the crucial vote in blocking good legislation or supporting bad legislation with long term consequences?
<
p>The law should not solely by judged on the basis of its outcomes.
The biggest reason this few-month gap would’ve been such a big deal is because of the high chance of having a very close vote on health care reform that will affect the country so profoundly. That’s exactly why we do all of this politics stuff – to make things like this happen. We don’t do good process merely for the sake of the process itself. So yes, this is good from a process standpoint, but the urgency to do it now definitely came from the even more important issue of health care.
<
p>If there were a conflict between good process and good results, we could have an interesting debate, but there was no conflict here: good process in the service of good real results is definitely a good thing.
<
p>Your wish to edit out the whole “in the service of good results” portion of it represents, I think, the very reason a lot of people mistakenly saw this in a cynical light: because a lot of people didn’t want to be honest about why it’s so urgent. I don’t think it’s good to hide it: this was urgent, specifically because of health care, and that’s a good reason for it to have been considered urgent.
that you’re venturing into “the ends justify the means” territory with this logic?
The Commonwealth retains two Senators during a vacancy period. The electorate gets to vote on a replacement in a special election within a speedy, but practical, interval.
<
p>This solution seems good on the merits.
I made the distinction quite clear. If the means are good, and serve good ends, and the latter is actually really important, focusing on the latter does not in any way make the means used any less good than they’d otherwise be. Which is exactly what some people have been pretending, and it’s ridiculous IMO.
<
p>This says nothing about bad means to good ends. If people were actually criticising the means, on substance, that’d be a different argument.