Special election likely in January

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Politico

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy urged Massachusetts lawmakers last week to give Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick the power to name his successor. But with reactions to Kennedy’s proposal mixed – and with the legislature not due back until after Labor Day – it appears for now that Massachusetts will be without a second senator until a special election can be held early next year

While many states allow a governor to fill a vacant Senate state, Massachusetts Democrats changed their state’s law in 2004 to prevent then Gov. Mitt Romney – a Republican – from naming a replacement for Sen. John Kerry if he had defeated George W. Bush in the presidential race.

Under the 2004 law, the governor must set a special election to fill a vacant Senate seat between 145 and 160 days after the vacancy occurs – meaning, in this case, that a special election would be held in the second half of January 2010.

In a letter to lawmakers last week, Kennedy said that the governor should once again be allowed to name a replacement senator, calling it “vital for this Commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26448.html

[newscott]

1. Massachusetts is screwed

We will get a hack politico who is beholden to special interests. This will not be good.

[No Elephants]

12. How about Senator Michael Capuano, currently proud member of the House Progressive Caucus

and co-sponsor of HR 676?

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. Changing the law back and forth to fit the political circumstances...

... makes our party look bad and is a bad idea.

I favor direct election over political machinations. Massachusetts can be trusted to elect a responsible progressive. They're pretty good at it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. Massachusetts can be trusted to elect a responsible progressive? What about

Mitt Romney, Paul Cellucci, and William Weld?

[Tracer]

5. They were Governors, not Senators.

MA voters sometimes tend to elect R Governors as a "balance" to the overwhelmingly Democratic MA legislature.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. But what if one of those well-known, popular former GOP Governors decides to run for the Senate seat

Voters may want to give some balance to Washington, where both the executive and legislative branches are run by Democrats.

I am in no way predicting a Republican victory for the vacant Senate seat. Whoever is the Democratic nominee will the the heavy favorite. But it could be a competitive race if the Republicans nominate a strong candidate.

[No Elephants]

30. Weld might make it, if he ran pro-public option. Massachusetts is not going to elect

someone who is the opposite of Kennedy, though.

IMO, they'll elect one of their Democratic U.S. House members.

[No Elephants]

18. I'd class Weld as progressive. Romney, if you recall, had cast himself as progressive when he had

run against Kennedy--pro choice, pro gay, pro gun control, etc. It was only after Dummya got elected and seemed so popular that Romney grabbed his tambourine and flip flopped on every single issue of importance, including whether he was a hunter or a road kill expert.

Celluci had been Weld's Lt. Governor, and became Governor when Weld resigned. So, when Cellucci ran for the first time, he was already Acting Governor.

After the election, he was only in office two years because Bush appointed him ambassador to Canada. Bush replaced him after four years, though, so who knows what all that was about.

That explains those three, but Massachusetts does elect Republican Governors from time to time because its legislature is almost 100% Democratic.

[stray cat]

4. Changing the law easily is dangerous - but it hurts for dem votes in the senate

[bc3000]

7. Does this mean no vote on health care until next February?

[No Elephants]

31. Not necessarily.

[No Elephants]

19. Changing the law is done every day in every state. The people who wrote the Constitution of the

United States and then the 17th amendment to same, all knew that.

[robo50]

9. Please look below for the my details..this change will NOT

stop an election which you favor.

[Dumak]

10. Premature Elucidation

They're going to elect someone in January regardless of whether someone is seated temporarily

[Pab Sungenis]

11. It's not changing the law back and forth

But clarifying the interim appointment while keeping the special election at 5 months instead of over a year as it had been before. The legislature can state that it was their intent to not leave the seat vacant, but just to accelerate the direct election process.

[No Elephants]

20. It was their intent to leave the seat vacant, though. However, there is no shame in that. It is

exactly what those passing the 17th amendment contemplated. So is the ability of the legislature to amend, repeal and replace laws from time to time. this is news only to some folks at DU. There's politics in politics. Alert the media.

[No Elephants]

13. You are misunderstanding.

Whether the law stays as is or whether it changes per Kennedy's request, a special election will be held in about five months. The only issue is whether the seat stays empty for those five months (current law) or gets filled with an interim appointee (Kennedy's request).

Kennedy also asked that the appointee give his or her personal commitment not to run for the seat in the election, but that cannot be legislated or enforced.

As far as political choices, that is exactly what the Constitution of the United States contemplated originally and now. Originally, the Legislature got to name the new Senator. Around about 1850, legislatures got to infighting and therefore taking oo long to pick a new Senator.

That was allowed to go on until 1911, when Congress adopted the 17th Amendment. After the people of the US voted for it, it became effective in 1913. But the legislature still had the power to decide whether the seat stayed vacant or whether the Governor could make the appointment. And we all know Legislatures can adopt, amend and repeal laws at will; and we also know that Legislatures make political choices. They knew those things in 1789 and in 1913, too.

No matter what, though, IMO, it is better to have the seat filled for five months than to have it empty for five months. If not, we were all bsing when we yelled about Coleman not sitting down and letting Minnesota have two Senators. And it is not only my opinion, but the opinion of scholars, who support interim appointment until a special election can be held.

And btw, make our party look bad to Whom? To Republicans? I think that ship sailed.

No matter what, two Senators are better than one, especially with health care pending. The people of Massachusetts deserve that and so does the nation. Absolutely no reason why a vote taken in 2004 should forecloses Massachusetts from having the best alternative?

[WriteDown]

14. A better way....

Changing the law now is nonsense. The better solution is to go back to the drawing board and actually come up with a legitimate single payer plan between now and February. Call it the Ted Kennedy Healthcare Act or something of that nature. When the new senator is voted in, pass REAL single payer healthcare. Then change the appointment law again if it is so desired.

[No Elephants]

16. Changing the law now is not nonsense. And, as you probably know, Obama opposes single

payer and it will not pass.

[WriteDown]

17. If its named for Ted Kennedy and pushed through...

as HIS legacy, then I believe it has a much better shot.

[No Elephants]

21. This is not 1964, and Ted is not a young, assassinated President. And Obama is no LBJ.

You're either dreaming or scheming, or both. In any event, it will not pass.

And even if would, that is still no reason to leave Massachusetts with one Senator for five months.

[WriteDown]

23. Ye of little faith...

I can see the country rallying around the 2010 Ted Kennedy Single-Payer Healthcare Reform Act. There would be a ground-swell of support.

Massachusetts was deemed fine to not have a Senator if John Kerry had won the presidency and that is the reason for the current dilemma. I can only see the currect healtcare bill improving between now and 01/2010 (hard to think it would get worse.)

[No Elephants]

25. No, Massachusetts clearly was deemed better off to have one Senator than to have a Senator

appointed by a Governor who ran as a liberal against Senator Kennedy, ran for Governor as a liberal, then did a 180 degree change. And the most important legislation since 1964 was not pending then.

Different circumstances call for different measures. That's why the COTUS left this to state legislatures. The mass legis. acted exactly as it should have in 2004 and hopefully will now make the change Kennedy requested, exactly as it should.

[WriteDown]

27. Easy fix....

Pass a law that the current governor can appoint all future governors and senators in MA. That should ensure that its always the "right" result. And while we're at it, change the tuck rule so the Raiders win the 2002 AFC playoff game.

[No Elephants]

28. Too bad neither the Constittution of Massachusets nor the COTUS allow what you suggest, while

both allow--and fully contemplate--what was done in 2004 and what Senator Kennedy requested.

Oh, and ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[WriteDown]

29. I'm sure there are ways around that....

This is aboud doing what is right, not about following pesky laws.

[No Elephants]

32. What ways around what? Yeah, those pesky Constitutions, huh?

[WriteDown]

33. I'm sure a way can be found.

Its like if you're a cop and you just "know" someone is guilty so you plant a little heroin on them. You do what's right even if you have to change the rules.

[Dumak]

34. How about...

Pass a law that says the governor can appoint an interim senator as long as he/she is approved by the party of the senator that has lost his seat. If the party does not approve, then they wait for a special election. That might satisfy the constitution as long as it is ultimately the governor that technically does the appointment, if any.

[JeanGrey]

35. I agree. You never know when changing this stuff to suit

yourself will come back to bite you.

[robo50]

8. The law will STILL require an election...changing it does NOT stop

the election, but, as the OP article says, the election comes in JANUARY, way too late for a vote on Health Care. While, in many OTHER STATES, if a Senator dies today, THOSE states will be able to have a Senator appointed tomorrow.

Massachusetts legislature was foolish to leave out this amendment, and should not punish the state by denying representation in the US Senate for so many months.

Please represent clearly what is being done here with the amendment, it is giving back temporary continuity of representation to the voters of Mass for several months BEFORE AN ELECTION!

Also, the appointee would NOT be able to run for election... this is what would be passed as an amendment.

52% of the voters in Mass want this amendment. Let their state legislature do the job.

[No Elephants]

15. You are correct about everything except the appointee not being able to run.

Senator Kennedy asked that the appointee give his personal commitment not to run (presumably to Patrick). But, IMO, that commitment, if given, would not be enforceable in a court (or anywhere).

People have a Constitutional right to run for office if they are eligible. In my considered opinion, state law cannot legislate that away from anyone, nor did Senator Kennedy ask for that.

[robo50]

22. Patrick lives in Rhode Island. He cannot be appointed.

The bill can be crafted whatever way the Mass legislature wants to. An interim office-holder would not be representing Mass voters well if he or she were also campaigning for election to office permanently. I think you MAY BE right that it COULD BE challenged in court, but I doubt it WOULD be, given the spirit and intent of the amendment to the law, namely to provide continuity and quality Senatorial service to the people.

I think the appointee would be the Chief of Staff of the Senator's office, a non-politician.

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. Or an elder-statesman type who has no further political ambitions, like

Michael Dukakis

[No Elephants]

26. Deval Patrick, governor of Massachusetts, not Patrick Kennedy. And not to receive .

the appointment, but to receive the personal commitment I mentioned. As I said, Senator Kennedy asked only for a personalcommitment, and probably for the reason I gave.

Finally, if what you suggest COULD be challenged in court as unconstitutional, any lawmakers who enacted it anyway would be violating their oaths of office. And I would not want a thing to do with them. If it wasn't right for Bush to piss on the Constitution, it's not right for anyone, including the Massachusetts Legislature.