Senator Ted Kennedy, who is gravely ill with brain cancer, has sent a letter to Massachusetts lawmakers requesting a change in the state law that determines how his Senate seat would be filled if it became vacant before his eighth full term ends in 2012. Current law mandates that a special election be held at least 145 days after the seat becomes available. Mr. Kennedy is concerned that such a delay could leave his fellow Democrats in the Senate one vote short of a filibuster-proof majority for months while a special election takes place.
"I therefore am writing to urge you to work together to amend the law through the normal legislative process to provide for a temporary gubernatorial appointment until the special election occurs," writes the Senator.
What Mr. Kennedy doesn't volunteer is that he orchestrated the 2004 succession law revision that now requires a special election, and for similarly partisan reasons. John Kerry, the other Senator from the state, was running for President in 2004, and Mr. Kennedy wanted the law changed so the Republican Governor at the time, Mitt Romney, could not name Mr. Kerry's replacement. "Prodded by a personal appeal from Senator Edward M. Kennedy," reported the Boston Globe in 2004, "Democratic legislative leaders have agreed to take up a stalled bill creating a special election process to replace U.S. Senator John F. Kerry if he wins the presidency." Now that the state has a Democratic Governor, Mr. Kennedy wants to revert to gubernatorial appointments.
Beacon Hill has long sported heavy Democratic majorities, so the state legislature has the votes to grant Mr. Kennedy's wish. But does it have the chutzpah? An election is the more democratic option. After witnessing recent attempts by incompetent Governors in Illinois and New York to fill Senate vacancies, Massachusetts voters may have soured on such appointments. Especially when Mr. Kennedy's motivation for changing the law is so obviously born of partisan interest, not principle
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204884404574362541012511408.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Hey Sean, The guy died. Don't you catch a break when you die?
I hope do
I'm not gonna say anything about him in particular. But, I'm gonna keep an interest in whether this last request is pursued or granted.
So, this is really more about Democrats in general, as opposed to Ted.
In NJ, when Bob Toricelli dropped out of the senate race. The rules were very clear that it was too late to replace him on the ticket. However, with enough mewling, the dems managed to resurrect Frank Lautenberg and get him on the ticket.
In NJ, when Gov. McGreevey announced his resignation, he made it effective several months later, so he was able to avoid an election to choose his successor.
In MA, when Sen. Kerry was nominated for president, the state house changed the rules to remove power from the governor to name his replacement.
The ends justify the means, right Pat?
No, not always
I don't get this whole "filibuster proof majority" thing. While it's true that 60 votes is a super majority in the Senate I'm about as likely to have angels fly out of my ass as you are to have all 60 Democrats vote the same way.
Anyways somehow I don't think it's appropriate that someone (like me) from Florida feels that they have any business telling anyone how to run their elections.
In the beginning... I would totally agree with you Doug. When this country was born, the senators were appointed by state governments. But probably they had a lot less actual impact our American's lives than they do today. But, that was before it became standard operating procedure to tithe all of the states and have congress apportion out "federal funds" based on their own influence and payback of supporters. I don't think the idea that congress would tax one state to support another was envisioned when we started.
Now, we have congress to the point of telling us what toilets and light bulbs to use, determining how home loans and credit cards are managed, and soon how much energy we can use. Since the federal government has become the central authority, I think we are all much more interested in who is serving.
How many out-of-state democrat/liberal resources do you think were committed to handing Al Franken the election in Minnesota?
Probably something similar to how many out-of-state republican/conservative resources were committed to prevent it from happening.
Absolutely - the point is they are no longer managing the affairs between the states, they are managing the affairs within the states.
To say nothing of the affairs we continue to "manage" within other countries.
So Sean, how is it you, as a citizen of New Hampshire, feel compelled to manage the affairs of Massachusetts?
RAC, read me statement to Doug about the "evolving role" of the congress in mandating how all states run (e.g. government mandated healthcare).
Oh, and by the way, I am not a citizen of MA, but I'm certainly a tax payer here. Sadly, I have no vote. Sounds like taxation without representation. Too bad, this state has forgotten their objection to this.
Sean, I think you are confused. It is Massachusetts STATE lawmakers Sen. Kennedy was appealing to. It is up to the individual STATES as to how they appoint THEIR senate replacements. So I ask again, why do you feel compelled to manage the affairs of Massachusetts?
WSJ: "Senator Ted Kennedy, who is gravely ill with brain cancer, has sent a letter to Massachusetts lawmakers requesting a change in the state law that determines how his Senate seat would be filled if it became vacant before his eighth full term ends in 2012."
... unless of course you feel entitled to participate in the selection of another State's Senators. Maybe you can get Congress to pass a law dictating how individual states appoint their Senate replacements?
As if I have any ability to "manage the affairs" of MA...
As I'm sure you know, I'm commenting on the way the rules have been changed (or ignored) in these cases, specifically in MA concerning how Senators are replaced.
As far as I'm concerned we can go back to the original rule in the constitution that empowered the state legistlatures to appoint all senators (replacements or otherwise).
Rock on Sean!
Sean is so ever very rarely confused! I would bet my every paycheck on what he has to say.
No, but you are RIC.
;) !
Post a Comment