In every article I've read about the procedure to replace Senator Kennedy should he choose to retire because of his illness, the law regarding succession has pointed to a special election between 145 and 160 days after the resignation is announced. Here is this morning's Globe, for example:
The law says a special election would be held 145 to 160 days after either a vacancy is created or a senator declares he or she is vacating the seat. It specifically bars a temporary appointee until voters can choose a replacement.
That is what the law says, but it also says something else, which I have not seen reported anywhere:
If a vacancy for senator is created after April 10 of an even-numbered year, but on or before the seventieth day preceding the regular state primary, the precepts shall appoint the day of the regular state primary and the biennial state election for holding the special primary and special election required by this section.
In other words, if Senator Kennedy were to announce his retirement on or before July 8 (the seventieth day before the September primary) the special election would be placed on the November 4 ballot along with the other races, including the presidential race and the contest for John Kerry's seat. In that case, a special primary would be held on September 16 along with the regularly scheduled primary.
This is in no way to suggest that Senator Kennedy should or will announce a retirement early this summer. Yesterday's news saddened me greatly, and I hope along with the everyone else in Massachusetts that Senator Kennedy makes a full recovery. But if the Senator believes that his prognosis is bleak, the timing of a possible decision to retire becomes very important, as the prospect of another election this summer looms.
Crossposted at my blog, No Drumlins.
if this is true, I wonder how long before it gets reported.
just going forward? . . that’s all.
<
p>i know that we are all political junkies here, but mr. kennedy’s dilemma is a human one. and we should all continue to try to keep that in mind as we’re champing at the bit to speculate about what would happen if he were a dead man.
<
p>nobody here has been talking in a crass heartless way. and we should hope that it doesn’t ever devolve into that.
<
p>
is what the diary states. this is not a death watch.
<
p>i agree that we must be respectful of senator kennedy and his family. but there is nothing disrespectful in recognizing reality, and the reality is that he may retire because of his ailments. either way, the governmnet will continue to function with or without him. it is not disrespectful to attempt to continue on as smoothly as possible what he participated in for 40+ years. in fact it is a tribute to him to care what happens to his venerable seat.
Given that Senator Kennedy has full cognitive ability, it’s entirely reasonable to have this discussion, and I would hope that his political staff is having it too while his medical staff discuss his recovery and his family discuss their personal matters.
<
p>Retirement is an option even if Senator Kennedy will make a full recovery.
<
p>
<
p>Frankly, the needs of the citizens of the Commonwealth and the Nation don’t stop because a senator is ill. Everyone ought to be the utmost respectful to Senator Kennedy, but the deadlines that the law provides are clear and binding, so making sure that the best decision is made for the people is the most important thing that Kennedy’s political staff can be considering right now and, when appropriate, discussing with the Senator himself.
I think Kennedy and the staff he has built are more than capable of representing me even while he is ill and undergoing treatment, as long as he’s still able to communicate. He is so much more effective than his peers (particularly a rookie) that I’m not worried about him not doing his job.
<
p>However, I would understand if he decided to retire for personal reasons; he has given his life to public service and if he wants to have some time to focus on his health and his family that would make sense.
What happens if he announces after July 8? Two completely separate elections?
<
p>I’m wishing him many more years of happy life too, but I don’t want to pressure him into working for all of them. So as he is no doubt considering retirement, which is better, before of after?
Which is better, I asked, same as Kerry, or resign after the deadline and have a separate election.
<
p>I think Kerry is helped by the thought that we might not have a distinguished elder statesman in the Senate anymore. Even if just for six more years, we are too vain to lose that prestige. Other states have no-name senators, not Massachusetts, and certainly not TWO no-name senators! So Kerry’s a shoe-in if Kennedy retires. Plus, we’ll know where he is, like an aunt living in the attic, but its better than her wandering around on her own.
<
p>And if there is a successor pre-groomed, he (100 bucks says his pre-groomed successor is a he), he’s probably someone like Markey who would benefit from a short cycle, where there’s no time for an opponent to convince the media he’s credible.
<
p>So I predict with all those advantages to Kerry and Markey or whoever, he decides to retire July 8th. Plus, it helps Obama because we’ll all look at McCains head now (his VP pick will be a co-candidate, the number 1.1, not the number 2, that’s twice as many gaffes and embarrassments).
<
p>Will Mitt come back if he’s not picked as VP? Gabrielli is probably sorry he spent so much money. Hmmm, who else is out there to be the next Senator?
of the MA congressional delegation is well aware of those deadlines. There’s nothing wrong with discussing the reality of the situation, particularly since the deadlines are looming. I think it goes without saying that we all have only best wishes for Kennedy. And I’m willing to bet that he’s having many of these same conversations.
The Kennedys like to keep it in the family above and all else. I find it a lot more likely that Kennedy would retire and give his seat to a relative.
<
p>Joe Kennedy has political experience but remains a controversial figure, he couldn’t beat Harshbarger so how could he win statewide?
<
p>Ed Kennedy Jr-the nepotism is a bit too obvious, no political experience, also questionable MA residence
<
p>So Id say Vikki Kennedy is the logical choice. It is quite common and respected for the wife of a politician to take over in the event that he dies before election day a la Jean Carnahan or retires. MA has never had a woman senator, she has been a consistent advocate for many of the policies Ted has fought for, has experience on both sides of the media, and most of those Congressmen waiting in the wings would be unwilling to challenge her-especially on a short time frame. They might challenge Joe who is still controversial or Ted Jr. who is an unknown but they wouldn’t challenge her especially if Ted’s condition is known to be fatal-which sadly most doctors speculate it well could be.
<
p>In any case this discussion is rather pointless-I would disagree that it is rude to speculate-I would say its imprudent since we will not know the Senators intentions until he announces them and only then will we see who decides to run in his place.
<
p>Certainly the loss of such a presence and a senior member of the Senate could be devastating to the state but someone very close to Ted like Vikki or an experienced congressmen like many in our delegation would be a solid choice and might have a leg up on most freshmen.
…look for Ted to annoint Patches on the 4th of July in Hyannisport!
I just read the article and it was really stupid, partisan, and short sighted for the Leg to take away the Governors power to appoint a replacement. Certainly we didn’t want Kerry’s seat to go Republican but thats no reason to take away sensible legislation. If a Senator dies suddenly or otherwise is no longer able to fulfill his duties he ought to be replaced immediately so that we will not be down representation in that body. Even in the likelihood Romney appointed himself, Healy, or another Republican its unlikely they would have won in the special election that would have been called to validate their appointment.
Sal DiMasi has already signaled his willingness to change the law back to the way it was.
Doesn’t it always work this way?