Today, we are rolling out our support for Senator Edward Kennedy’s request that state leaders change the succession law to guarantee that Massachusetts will not lack a senator if his seat becomes vacant.
We call upon state legislators to change Massachusetts law to allow for an interim appointment before a special election. We further agree with Senator Kennedy that should the law be changed, and if ever such an appointment should need to be made, we call on Governor Patrick to appoint a caretaker of upstanding character who will pledge not to run in the special election to follow.
This is nothing any of us want to contemplate. We want the our senior senator to return to health and continue his service. And yet it is because we respect his work so much, and be because we know that his request is wise long-term policy, that the legislature should act on his request immediately.
Sincerely,
Avi Green
Executive Director
MassVOTE
Yes to appointing an interim, but no to any requirement or expectation that he not seek election in his own right.
<
p>No to special election, but a regular election should be held at the next biennium (ie Nov. 2010 rather than Nov. 2012). By the way that’s how EMK first got elected. He ran for his brother’s seat in 1962 even though the term would not have been up until 1964.
is that we should go back to what the law was before the legislature changed it in 2004, right? With perhaps the modest difference that the interim is installed only until the next biennial election, rather than completing the unexpired term? One big problem with that is that it could easily result in both of the state’s Senate seats being up in the same year. In addition to the whole anti-democratic thing.
Had the law been changed since 1962 to fill the entire remainder of the term? As I said above the current Kennedy was elected at the “wrong” biennium. I think I’ve been clear that the “undemocratic” element doesn’t bother me, and the point about two Senators up at once certainly doesn’t. I believe both of the two current CA Senators were first elected in 1992.
Also, even that election would only fill the unexpired term. It would not permanently alter the cycle.
It is as if we all found out yesterday that the special election procedure included a time with only one vote in the Senate. I want healthcare passed as badly as the next person. If this scenario were being played out in reverse in another state, a Republican Governor and Legislature trying to amend the law to appoint a ‘no’ vote replacement senator we would all be outraged by the brazen legal manipulation. Filling vacancies with special elections is the fairest way possible. We should be proud that MA is one of the dozen or so states to do so and take the bad with the good. If Charlie Baker becomes our next Governor should the legislature again change the law back to special elections? Where does it end?
there will still be a special election on exactly the same schedule as under current law, and the interim (and hence the party controlling the Gov’s office) would have no advantage because he or she would be ineligible to run.
<
p>You’re right that this change would present the problem of a temporary (4-5 months) Senator who might vote the “wrong” way if MA elects a Republican Governor. But, of course, if MA elects a Republican Governor, that’s what MA should expect. It boils down to whether someone in the seat is better than no one. Under my proposal, I see considerable upside and modest but acceptable downside (in health care, for example, a vacant seat is functionally identical to a “no” vote — neither helps overcome a Republican filibuster). However, if we can’t make the interim legally ineligible to run, then I would oppose any change in the law on small “d” democratic grounds.
I completely agree with David, though I would also advise making this change permanent. This change, while progressive and small d democratic, was done for purely partisan political purposes. Let’s not kid ourselves that the leg wanted a more democratic Senate replacement make in 04, they wanted a more Democratic Senate replacement in 04 to strip Romney of powers he actually had.
<
p>Is it possible to make this a constitutional amendment so that we have the fairest and most democratic replacement mechanism without subjecting it to partisan gamesmanship every four years?
<
p>I would not want a hypothetical Governor Baker to be stripped of his power of temporary appointment in the future if a vacancy occurred.
<
p>And simply saying ‘we need health care passed NOW!’ is not, in my view, a warranted argument since the mechanisms of government should not be subject to change on the basis of short term partisan considerations, no matter how noble they may be.
I agree with this point:
I have little kindness for those that oppose major HC reform, just to be clear, but we are talking “law of the land” shit here.
<
p>This is the stuff that those before us left for us to help perfect. Our actions are our legacy to future genrations. We cannot subvert Constitutional principles (fair elections), no matter the urgency.
<
p>Having said that, subversion of our Constitution is exactly the strategy of the far right. Crap like, a proposed Constitutional amendment to define marriage as 1 man and 1 woman makes me want to puke.
<
p>
I’d have to suggest having a Republican-appointed temporary caretaker, then a special election 5-6 months later, would still be preferable to an empty seat for 6 months. With an empty seat, constituents lose an important office to call and deal with constituent issue, as well as losing a Senator who will at the very least pursue the Commonwealth’s interests in bills like the budget, etc. Getting money for transportation, schools and health care, etc., is not really a partisan issue.
We are talking Massachusetts. Even “Hisself” was pro-choice when he had us to answer to.
<
p>Hat tip to DavidNYC for blogging The Party That Pretends to Say No over at DKos for turning us on to this CQ Politics tool: CQ Vote Studies: 2009
<
p>
If the situation were reversed, you can be darn sure that Republicans in a strong Republican state with a Republican Senator and a Democratic governor would be fighting tooth and nail to do exactly the same thing.
<
p>I think that it would have been a travesty if Mitt Romney appointed a Republican senator to John Kerry’s seat had he won in 2004. Four years with an unelected senator is too long, and one person making that appointment is not appropriate.
<
p>If the law was to allow Romney a temporary caretaker appointment, I’d have no problem with it, even if he appointed Howie Carr, particularly if the person appointed could not gain a leg up by taking the seat (i.e. could not run in the upcoming election).
<
p>It is not hypocrisy to be more concerned about one’s own interests. By that token, where were Republicans in 2004 who would clearly now oppose an “to the end of the term appointment” by a Democratic governor?
The law gets changed real quick because Ted tells us to do it. Also, it’s important for America to have XYZ passed with MA having it’s full say. Charlie gets elected governor. The law gets changed back citing that prolonged discussion finds that democracy really should prevail, and this is the for really reals last time we’re changing the law.
I think the change is sensible, especially if we make the temporary appointment ineligible to run in the Special Election, but it’s always harder to change things in politics than keep it the same.
I’m sure the matter is more complicated than it appears, but there’s precedent. Arkansas makes ineligible anyone who is appointed to fill the remainder of a Senate term to run for the following election (a fact which came into play in 1979). That may not solve all the questions, but at least it does answer one: someone’s done it before.
<
p>Even if the state failed to legally ensure the ineligibility of an appointed candidate, the majority of appointed candidates never serve beyond their appointed term.
<
p>
<
p>That said, while statistically there may not be a problem here, that may not assuage voters — and what’s happened nationally may be different in Massachusetts. So, I mostly agree with you: we should try especially hard to ensure that appointed candidates only be placeholders, ineligible to run in the special election — especially given the fact that should such a candidate run, when Massachusetts has so short a time between a potential US Senate vacancy and the special election to fill it, there isn’t really time for an appointee to be both a good senator and a good candidate. One or the other would give.
noone has mentioned the complicating factor here in that in all probability we’re going to 9 House seats after the 2010 census. Will be the night of long knives around here soon anyway, then throw in circling over a senate position to boot.
The voters and the electorate are of no consequence. What is important is the Massachusetts liberals pushing their agenda. That is what is important. Always keep that idea as your focus—what is good for me and our liberal agenda —— and the morons in the public can sod off!
We managed to keep more than several criminals in office with this tactic.
I have a couple of questions. I do think Kennedy’s idea is a good one for the future, but am deeply troubled by raising it now. It’s certainly expedient, but it carries the stench of crass politics given the timing. I’m afraid changing the law would simply increase the level of “the fix is in” cynicism about our political processes.
<
p>First an observation. Kennedy’s letter is heartbreaking-an acknowledgement that with each passing week, the possibility of his casting a vote for the central issue of his career is fading. It reminds me of a climber who gets within feet of the summit of Mount Everest, but has to turn back due to the weather. Politics apart, this has to be a crushing disappointment for him personally.
<
p>Second, a question. We’re all assuming that a special election would take 5 months. Couldn’t it be much faster? Lots of much larger countries hold snap elections with very short campaigns-why couldn’t we? Perhaps Massaschusetts wouldn’t be without a senator for very long at all.
<
p>Third, another observation and question. Where is John Kerry? Kennedy was supposed to be the lion to roar on health care reform. IMHO it’s time for our Junior Senator to step up to the plate and show leadership on this issue that is so important to his colleague. The lack of senate leadership on health care reform is hurting the cause badly.
<
p>Finally, a sad question. If Kennedy doesn’t think he’ll be able to vote, would it make sense for him to resign his seat now and get the special election process under way? If the time frame could be shortened for a special election, now would be the time to make a move. Endorse a successor. We need advocacy as well as a vote. This sounds harsher than I mean it to, and I mean no disrespect, but it’s one possible way to proceed.
<
p>I get the importance of having two senators, but it’s hard to support changing the rules in the middle of the game. For the future, it makes a lot of sense-but now, I think not so much.
in creating the law that passed in 2004 to block Mitt Romney from appointing a successor to John Kerry, this we all know. It seems however that the law they put in place was hastily framed and causes a Senate vacancy for around 5 months. This troubles me that our legislature would design a law that guarantees Massachusetts only one Senator, in the case of a vacancy, for about half a calendar year. I think that everyone would agree that this is a bad thing.
<
p>Democrats did indeed create this law for all the wrong reasons, but now it seems like Republicans want to keep it for all the wrong reasons, Republicans who opposed the change in 2004. I guess my question is, should politicians only support good policy when the time is politically correct to do so? Because I think that an effort, by either Democrats or Republicans, to block this change, is merely an act of maintaining political safety, and NOT an exercise in instituting good policy when the times call for it most.
<
p>Changing this law now would not only guarantee us two votes on the health reform bill, but what I think is more important, two voices in the shaping of the bill. Also changing the law creates what is probably the best way to fill a vacancy in the long term, a policy that will remain unchanged for years to come. Because this is obviously the best policy in the long term, the debate will be centered entirely in the short term, which means the debate is about health care. This means that STATE Senators and Reps will be forced to cast a vote that is essentially voting for or against a NATIONAL health care measure. National issues are something that state Senators and Reps often shy away from, and I think will ultimately result in this not coming to a vote (if at all) until it is no longer tied to a specific national issue. So in essence a law created out of political haste, will remain intact out of fear of political repercussion, and ultimately the debate has no bearing on whether it is or isn’t good policy.
the law should be revised to say either:
<
p>(a) only a Democrat governor can fill an interim seat. Mitt Romney, nope. Deval Patrick, yep.
<
p>(b) only a Democrat can be chosen to fill an empty seat until an election can be held, but of governor of either party may chose the person.
<
p>Would either of those work for you?
<
p>Maybe when diagnosed with TERMINAL BRAIN CANCER Senator Kennedy should have announced his resignation and given our local hacks time enough to hold their election. Don’t the Brits hold national elections with 3 months notice? We can’t do that?
<
p>Instead, he won’t let go until his wake.
<
p>Hey, Avi, where were you when the lege changed the law in the first place?
And delivered 45 days later? What’s that about?
From a my favorite generally reasonable conservative news service this………………..
<
p>
<
p>Timing and the players are all veddy interesting……….
There’s no way this will affect the Kennedy seat. I also don’t favor it. I prefer gubernatorial appointment (possibly with advice/consent and previous party provisions) followed by an election at the next biennium (how Ted Kennedy was first elected himself). Part of me wishes the 17th amendment had said that vacancies would still be filled by the state legislature as they were prior to the amendment.
Appoint YES! Amend that the sitting Govenor can only replace with previous party
I find it absolutely offensive to democracy. We don’t elect parties, we elect people who are members of a party. Other members of the party aren’t substitutes.
<
p>Furthermore, there’s no guarantee that
(a) the senator is a member of a political party
(b) that there’s an appropriate replacement of the same party (see Senator Sanders, VT).
<
p>I see no reason to add additional barriers to third parties. Third parties force Dems and Repubs to rethink, to reconsider, and to stay agile. I think the best thing for the Democrats in Massachusetts would be the Green-Rainbow party landing a few dozen seats on Beacon Hill. Frankly, I think we’d be better off with a few proper Libertarians too.
I think it adheres to the people’s most recently expressed wishes regarding the seat and is more likely that the new Senator will be similar in views to the departed Senator. To me for a Governor to appoint one of his own party when his was not the party in the Senate seat is even less democratic. This is also an exception to my general rule of not governing by polls. Since this is normally an elected position it seems appropriate that measured public opinion be taken into account when making the appointment.
and I hope my legislators vote to adopt Kennedy’s idea.