The problem is that Massachusetts is now a state where a special election must be called before a senate vacancy can be filled. I’m sure someone on BMG will know just how long this vacancy is likely to persist, but I believe it will take several months for party primaries and a special election to take place, given the minimum time periods for filing deadlines, scheduling elections, etc.
I’m not suggesting that we go back to the old system, still in place in many states, of the governor apppointing a “permanent” successor. We’ve recently had the Blago experience to remind us of the problems of lodging this power in a governor.
But what about giving the governor the power to appoint a temporary senator who, by state statute, could not run in the special election campaign? This would insure that the state was continuously represented by two senators. In our current situation, it would keep 58 or 59 senate seats (pending the Franken result) in Democratic hands. The Governor could appoint an elder statesperson type — think Mike Dukakis or Evelyn Murphy — to keep the seat filled until the special election takes place.
Is there any reason why our lopsidely Democratic legislature wouldn’t do this, in the interest of the national party’s agenda and the commonwealth’s interest in having two senators at all times? Do any states have a provision like this in their laws? Are there good policy reasons not to do this?
…of prohibiting an appointed Senator from seeking election in his own right. Why shouldn’t he make the case to voters that is appointment was justified by offering himself for their election? I’m actually fine with letting the Governor choose, though maybe we could provide for the confirmation by the Governor’s Council.
That’s a negative. No way, no how. The worst policy move anyone could possibly make in this state is to confer more authority on the godawful Governor’s Council. It’s amazing that they retain the authority they have (mainly, confirming judges), and they have that only because for whatever reason folks haven’t gotten up the gumption to amend the state Constitution appropriately. All of their statutory authority was erased in 1964 after the astounding corruption scandal in the late 1950s where half the Council ended up in prison. There was a nice write-up in the Phoenix a few weeks back.
They are duly elected by the people to exercise certain executive authority. I like that they separate judicial confirmations from the legislative function so nominations can’t be held hostage to other political considerations a la Jesse Helms. I firmly come down on the side of keeping the Council and expanding their advice and consent function to include cabinet appointments. A 60-year-old scandal hardly matters to the current situation.
You seem to be rather hostile to it, calling it “godawful” without obvious reason. They are duly elected by the people to participate in the executive duties of the Commonwealth. I for one prefer that the confirmation process rests with them since giving it to the legislature has the potential to hold nominations hostage to other considerations a la Jesse Helms. I firmly come down on the side of keeping the Council and expanding its advice and consent function to include cabinet posts. A 60-year-old scandal hardly seems like the reason to abolish it now. When there is corruption, deal with the corrupt individuals; reform the institution if necessary, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
I can confidently state that it will never, ever happen. The Council is an unfortunate holdover from the colonial era. Its powers will never be expanded, because it is in no one’s interest to do so (in addition to being bad policy).
What is inherently wrong with the Council system? They are elected by the people to fulfill a duly proscribed constitutional function, which the duly elected legislature may expand by law. You’re starting to sound like Tony Blair – if it’s ancient tradition it must inherently be bad,
You’re opposed to funding a special election so we can democratically elect a senator. However, you’re okay funding a semi-anonymous body who operates with no real accountability, no real interaction with the public, because nobody who knows who they are. Instead, they carry out one role in the serene peace of the shadows. Modern tradition is to have no earthly idea who is on the Governor’s Council.
<
p>Would you be willing to axe the Council, shift their duties to the Legislature — whose deliberations are public, whose members are known and are expected to declare their issues and meet their constituents — while we save the money for special elections?
A fiscal crisis is a terrible thing to waste. This is the perfect time to do exactly as sabutai suggests: abolish the Council and let the state senate confirm judges.
…to require the Council to meet in public session. It’s not the Council’s fault nobody knows who they are. Maybe it’s a vicious cycle as they don’t get press because they’re seen to not do much, but then nobody knows what they do because they don’t get press. It seems to work in NH where they are better known and have more authority.
..I’ve met every Massachusetts Constitutional Officer, and the entire Massachusetts Congressional Delegation, the County Commission, etc., etc. I’m not trying to brag, I’m just interested in politics. All that said, I’ve never had the opportunity to meet my Governor’s Councillor…she’s never felt the need to stop by at any area function. I wonder how typical my experience is.
I meet my Governor’s Councilor far too often…
It helps that she’s also a town official. Just be sure you’re always ready to duck, just in case.
One of the reasons it seems that Mary Ellen Manning attracted primary opposition is the complaint by some, including state legislators from her district, is we don’t see her very often. Maybe it’s different closer to her own side of the district.
<
p>Then again, I very often see Marilyn Petitto Devaney at political events in her district so I guess it varies.
<
p>I may have more awareness of the GC and its districts than some because my first position on the board of Young Dems. of MA a few years ago was GC district director, in which capacity I would go to political events in the 5th GC district to recruit members. Back then I did see Mary Ellen Manning more often.
<
p>BTW, I reread your original question and realized you were asking about using legislative advice and consent. I wouldn’t be completely opposed to it, but the 17th amendment specifically says the legislature can authorize “the executive” to make the appointment. I didn’t know if someone would thus object on constitutional grounds to involving the legislature, whereas the GC is still part of the executive. Note the amendment does not use the term “Governor” specifically, which is why I believe Governor-in-Council could be kosher.
what’s wrong with it is that a plural executive doesn’t work. In practice, what’s wrong with it is that a plural executive doesn’t work. The Council has been at best an ineffective joke (and sometimes much worse than that) for at least the last half century.
<
p>By the way, do you know who your Councillor is, or where he/she stands on anything? Maybe it’s this one? Or this one?
A salary-rich public role with no heavy lifting, which garners little attention and comparatively few votes, leads to corruption? Unbelievable…
I’m pretty sure each member makes less than 30K per annum. Just to anticipate a possible response to that I will also say its more work than a weekly meeting.
It really isn’t. Unless you count the time that judicial candidates have to stop by and kiss your ring as work time.
…what I have taken away from conversations and campaign talks of the Councilors themselves. Yes I do count candidates meeting with individual Councilors as work time just as I would count meeting with legislators as work time. Maybe if one of them looks at this site they can weigh in. To me the most compelling reason to keep the Council is divorce advice and consent from other political considerations as previously mentioned. Other than that, I feel that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it and you have yet to convince me that it’s broke.
Oh, well then. That settles it. Can’t imagine they’d ever overstate their importance, or how hard they work, or anything like that.
<
p>divorce advice and consent from other political considerations
<
p>This makes no sense at all. You think that by putting advice and consent in the Council, that somehow renders the process pure as the driven snow? Have you ever participated in the confirmation process for MA judges? I have (I used to work in the Gov’s Legal Office), and let me tell you, it’s not pretty. Apolitical is not a word I’d use for it.
<
p>The worst way to create a “non-political” confirmation process is to stick it in a little-noticed, obscure, but nonetheless political body of elected officials, 98% of whose constituents have no idea who they are.
I’d rather cast some daylight on the GC, than throw it out and yes, their own comments could easily be seen by the cynic as self-serving, but I really do get the sense that they are committed to their work. BTW, I’m not sure any process would be “pure as the driven snow”; even exalted democracy doesn’t fit that description! I still disagree, but least now I know where you’re coming from with your legal office background.
My Councilor is Mary Ellen Manning of Peabody, thank you very much. She was challenged by Tim Houten of Middleton in the most recent primary. As I recall most of the incumbents were challenged this past year, so there is apparently some interest. I do take note of (and lament) the fact that they don’t get more press and public notice as they do very important work.
Whose very adult comment about the nomination of Margot Botsford to the SJC was:
<
p>
<
p>This is the same Justice Botsford whose nomination was pretty much universally hailed by the rest of the legal profession.
<
p>Sorry Christopher, but the MA Governor’s Council is a bad joke on the rest of the Commonwealth.
…she seems to attract opposition. I wasn’t aware of that particular comment.
<
p>Anyway, I’m obviously outvoted on this particular issue. I’ve made my points and I stand by them.
This Globe editorial refers to Maureen Monks’ confirmation and my representative on the Governor’s Council. Ditto with the Herald. Time to get rid of the Governor’s Council.
The Council is the center of the hackocracy, as far as I can tell. I live in Kelly Timilty’s district, so I know whereof I speak. I have tried unsuccessfully to figure out what qualifications she has to evaluate judicial nominations, or why she doesn’t seem to think it matters that she failed to attend most council meetings. And Mary-Ellen Manning is worse, voting against obviously qualified candidates for judgeships on ridiculous grounds.
<
p>I’m opposed to electing judges, which means that someone, either the Governor or the Senate, will need to approve the Governor’s nominations to give them democratic legitimacy. But the Council needs to go. Let Councilors Timilty and Manning find jobs that they are qualified to do.
<
p>TedF
I don’t think the legislature can create additional qualifications for Senator by barring the appointee from running.
<
p>I also don’t think its necessary, but thats another thing.
You may be right technically. But how would this be litigated? Only things I can think of would be if a “temporary” appointee turned around a couple of months later and brought suit in federal court to gain ballot access. (How electable would he/she be then?) Or if the Senate refused to seat the winner of the special election claiming that the state law unconstitutionally denied ballot access to the “incumbent”.
<
p>The change I’m suggesting could alter the political process so that (1) the state would not go months without full representation (and in the current Congress, Dems would have an easier time enacting their agenda); (2) the people got to vote on the successor to serve out the majority of the unexpired term; and (3) governors didn’t get to sell off senate seats for cash or political support.
<
p>Works for me.
A Special Election puts the decision in the hands of the electorate…where it belongs. The period it takes to implement that is well worth it in order to keep the people in charge of who represents them in DC.
<
p>Appointing replacements or “seat-warmers” is opening the Pandora’s box to all the political chicanery and dealmaking we have witnessed in other states this year…no thanks.
<
p>Considering how slow everything moves in DC, a couple of months delay will not even be noticed. As for getting the 60 votes on an important vote, if you can’t make your case to at least 2 GOP Senators that it has merit, maybe you need to work it harder.
<
p>
I’d rather save the money for other things, especially at the local level. The Governor as representative of the state is competent and I certainly trust the current one. Remember, technically the Senators represent the states as units rather than “the people” which is the function of the House.
So is democracy. It would be much cheaper to have a hereditary monarchy. But we’ve chosen a different path.
<
p>“I certainly trust the current one.”
<
p>A tad short-sighted, no? The law was changed from Gov appointment to special election when there was a chance that John Kerry would be president and Mitt Romney would get to fill the seat. They changed the law for the wrong reason (naked partisanship), but nonetheless they did the right thing in terms of promoting democracy. It would be a terrible move to change the law again for the wrong reason, but this time in the wrong direction on the merits.
<
p> Remember, technically the Senators represent the states as units rather than “the people” which is the function of the House.
<
p>Huh? In what “technical” sense? Since the adoption of the 17th Amendment that statement makes no sense at all. Sorry, but the Senators represent the people of their states, just like the Reps represent the people of their districts.
Many would argue that monarchies have a reputation for squandering money without accountability.
<
p>Trusting the current one may be a tad shortsighted, but it’s still one of his duties and I thought we were specifically talking about a current situation (Kennedy).
<
p>I’m very aware of the 17th amendment thank you very much, but it’s the notion of representing states that allows there to be equal representation rather than by population. I stand by previous comments about the Governor being competent to represent the will of the state.
Gosh, how awful. Thank heavens that never happens in our system! 😉
New York? Illinois? Are you really that at ease with gubernatorial appointment powers?
First of all, what was wrong with NY? There was debate about who was an appropriate appointee, but no scandal of any kind.
<
p>As for IL, that was addressed and the Governor in question is gone. Plus, Burris appears to have not participated in the shenanigans so he’s good until the people have their say.
Every day, worse stuff is coming out about Burris, including questions about the lies he’d earlier told about his relationship with Blago. In New York, we were all subjected to a lot of prevaricating by a governor who increasingly seems in over his own head. He finally settled on a pro-gun inexperienced pick that seems more likely to shore up his own chances of re-election than serving the people of New York.
<
p>Call me crazy, but I think elections are examples of money well spent.
If they’re that horrible next election is less than two-years away. Meanwhile states go longer with vacant seats and yes, I stand by my comments about money.
<
p>Link.
It appears we will face a minimum of five months without a senator, and therefore five months of more leverage for obstruction by the Republican “moderates” in the US Senate. Or, if the legislature changed the law, Governor Patrick could install, temporarily, a states(wo)man to serve for a few months until the voters had their say in the special election.
<
p>Terry Murray and Bob DeLeo, save us!
Sure, your blog, you get to promote, but I’d like to think I’m holding forth well enough in favor of the GC, thank you very much! One of the things that I love about Mass. politics is its throwbacks to our ancient traditions and ceremonies: a state Bible, a Sargeant-at-Arms in his top hat and tails, the address of the Governor as His Excellency, and yes, “Ye Olde Guvnah’s Coouuncil”. A friend and I have this running joke about how it wouldn’t take much arm-twisting to get the General Court to come into session wearing magisteral robes. I say bring on the powdered wigs!:)
I can’t imagine their budget being more than a drop in the bucket relatively speaking. If that’s not true then we can certainly talk about streamlining in that regard.
<
p>I believe they are responsible for approving gubernatorial pardons and reviewing applications for notaries public.
is here, but unfortunately it’s lumped in with the Gov’s and LtGov’s office, so it’s hard to know how much it really costs. Basically, it’s 8 Councillors x around $15,000 salary for each, plus whatever benefits they get, plus probably modest administrative expenses. I’d guesstimate it’s around $200,000-250,000. Sure, a drop in the bucket, but even that amount could avoid laying off a few teachers or cops.
I wonder: if they weren’t doing the work they’re doing, wouldn’t somebody else be doing it? Somebody would be performing those “duties”, no? If so, it’s not clear that they’re any more or less expensive.
<
p>I’m not arguing for or against GC, I’m just not so sure that money is a strong argument against, not because of the amount but because we as a state would be spending the money to have those duties performed with or without a GC, no?
What work? That’s the point. The Senate could confirm judges without any addition to its budget. There is no earthly reason for the Council to attend to warrants or notaries public — those could easily be folded into the duties of the Treasurer and the Secretary of State with, again, no additional funds. And review of pardon recommendations from the Parole Board should be handled within the Governor’s Office (most likely by the Office of Legal Counsel).
<
p>The Council is entirely superfluous.
but they are reading documents and making decisions. If they weren’t doing it, somebody else would, no?
<
p>If the Senate were to confirm judges, that means that the senators (or their staffers) need to review the applicants (if only “finalists”) — something they don’t do now. That takes time and salary. As for attending to warrants/notaries — it takes staff, no? That staff would have to be absorbed in to the Treasurer/SoComm, no? Would it just happen magically? A review of pardon recommendations from the Parole Board happening in the Governor’s office is A-OK by me — but who will do the reviewing? Isn’t that more work for the same size staff?
<
p>I agree that the GC itself could be “absorbed” into other elected positions (Senate, Treas, SofComm, Gov)… but somebody has to review all this stuff and make recommendations, regardless of which office it’s housed in.
<
p>Am I wrong on that observation?
Sure, but not in the zero-sum kind of way you’re suggesting. If you told a Senator that she now had to take on the role of advice and consent for judges, they’d simply rearrange their schedules. A little less time would be spend on, say, the bridge-naming bills. Wouldn’t be such a bad thing.
<
p>As for warrants/notaries, the answer is “no,” it does not take staff. GC approval of treasury warrants is pro forma — a completely meaningless round of paper-pushing that the state Constitution unfortunately forces upon us. Notaries are similar — the Gov’s office already does the heavy lifting. GC role is expendable.
<
p>What will you do when a Republican governor has the ability to appoinbt this temporary placeholder? When the Senate is 50-50, etc.?
<
p>Once you make a law, it applies regardless of party. How much sanctimonious drivel did we have to listen to when the law was changed to prevent Romeny from making an appointment, since Kerry was OF COURSE going to win…it was all just coincidental that the change was being made now….
<
p>The Democrats in the legislature have already passed one law to solve a problem which never came to pass – how many more laws will they have to pass when they once again come face-to-face with the unintended outcome of their ‘problem solving’ skills?
to get it right.
<
p>Personally, I don’t mind a 120 day vacancy. It’s unfortunate, but since incumbency is so powerful I don’t mind always making sure the people decide.
<
p>Frankly, if the senate majority leader is going to need that one more vote… hold off a few months until you have it. There are plenty of other problems to work on in the mean time.
<
p>And hey — if you’re a senior Senator with health problems, consider not running for reelection to ensure that your state has two working Senators at all times. Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
The Republicans are loving the fact that Minnesota only has one Senator, it seems…
Assuming our legislature stayed lopsidedly Democratic in the future, might they change the law back again, preferring a several-month vacancy to a Republican appointee, even a temporary one who couldn’t run for the seat? Sure.
<
p>State legislatures have been known to do some pretty partisan things when it comes to their congressional delegations. Why, just a few years ago, some of your compadres down in Texas tried to have Democratic legislators arrested and brought to the state capitol to vote on a plan to gerrymander the state’s congressional district boundaries in order to deliver several more seats to the Republicans. I don’t recall you expressing outrage about that at the time — if you did, please provide a link and I will tip my hat to you.
For those not familiar with the story, HERE is a link to the New York Times story at the time.
<
p>For those who don’t follow the link to the New York Times, here’s the money quote –
<
p>
<
p>You see, this isn’t the first time this has happened. Except it was Republicans hiding from Democrats then, so naturally it was OK to send the Texas Rangers after THEM. FWIW, I don’t see why they don’t just change their quorum rules.
All due respect to senator Kennedy. Here’s an idea:
<
p>Kennedy could now declare that he is soon ready to step down. The special election could be set for 120 days from today (or whenever he wants). The campaign would occur with Kennedy still acting as senator. Then, a week after the election, Kennedy could step down and transfer the seat to the newly elected successor. Seamless.
<
p>It would take some initiative, but what do you think?
After all, you can’t have an election until there’s a vacancy. Can a Senator resign on a date in the future?
From the statute linked upthread:
<
p>
<
p>The only modification to 1776’s suggestion is that the resignation would have to take effect before the election — but maybe only the day before. So the transition could be quite smooth.
he could endorse his choice for his successor during the special election campaign. That would, I think, be a very potent endorsement.
on Mar 1 that he’ll step down on July 1, can he not take it back on June 25? Just how binding is it? After all, there certainly can’t be an election unless the resignation is 100% certain.
Hopefully we will never have to figure it out. The statute clearly says that once a resignation letter is “filed,” an election can go forward, as long as it happens after the resignation date set forth in the letter. It’s unclear what “filed” means, but I assume that a sitting Senator would have to file such a letter with the Secretary of the Senate, and perhaps with the MA Secretary of State as well. Maybe, once such a letter is “filed,” it is irrevocable.
I. did. not. know. that. Despite that it is indeed further upthread. I got distracted by the right margin hugging discussion and missed it.
<
p>So, herein lies the right answer methinks. Senator Kennedy ought to resign for a future date, which allows the Dems to control the seat until the election results are in. I wonder if he’s waiting on Senator Byrd to call it quits first.
maybe they will sign a joint letter of resignation.
…is the only person standing between Kennedy and the pro tem presidency of the Senate. They are members of the same Senate class so Byrd would have to resign or at least allow the seniority rule to be waived.
the GOP’s perennial electoral failure, Mike Franco, had this to say in a recent email. The GC is still seen as a stealth entry point for the GOP, I guess because no one is looking.
these races come down to a strict party-line vote, which gives the GOP a distinct disadvantage.
The districts are too big (only 8 of them for the whole state – 5 times bigger than Senate districts), and the race is too low profile. GOP can’t get up the momentum in these races.
We’ve had a unanimously Democratic GC for quite awhile, I think.
‘fwiw’. i fully accept your answer of ‘not much’. ;-D