Gov. (Deval Patrick) would OK law change for Kennedy successor

Source: WP/AP

BOSTON -- Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick said Wednesday he would support changing state law to allow him to appoint an interim successor to Sen. Edward Kennedy's seat while a special election is held.

Unlike most states, a successor to a vacant U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts is chosen by special election, not appointed by the governor.

In a recent letter to lawmakers, Kennedy, who died Tuesday night, said the law should be changed to allow the governor to appoint someone to serve in the Senate during the course of the election - provided that person pledge not to run for the seat.

In radio interviews Wednesday morning, Patrick called the idea "entirely reasonable" and told WBUR-FM that he would sign the bill if it reached his desk.

"Massachusetts needs two voices" in the Senate, Patrick said.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/26/AR2009082600140.html?hpid=topnews

as to whether it is the correct thing to do.

Some things are too damn important to take the "high road" and risk failing.

Change the law, get a pro-people vote into the Senate, and move ahead on healthcare reform.

This proposed change is just for the interim months BEFORE an election can be held, allowing the people of my state to have two votes in the US Senate, just like the case is with other states.

The interim person would not be someone running for election, would not be allowed to run in the election, would be a place-holder only!

an upper hand in the special election, and it gives your State it's 2 votes. I don't see any downside.

the appointment back to the people via election (in case Kerry won) was pretty back-door, politically-expedient. Not that that is a bad thing.

But, my point is that, regardless on whether you think the replacement procedure should be an appointment or an election, the key issue is that Massachusetts is missing a voter in the Senate, and the causes that Sen. Kennedy so passionately cared about are down one vote. That needs to be remedied ASAP, which obviously would be via law-change and appointment.

Whether, when the election is held later, the "place-holder" (and Senate vote) has an advantage or not is not my concern. What matters is now. We cannot afford to be another vote short, like what happened when the pukes blocked Franken for half a god-damned year.

So, I am willing to reverse the law for expediency-sake to help get real healthcare reform passed.

known when the 17th amendment to the COTUS was passed, as was the tendency of state legislatures to make politically expedient decisons. Nothing back door about it. Before the 17h amendment, the legislature flat out picked the successor. That was changed because, around 1850, they were taking too long. But the COTUS still left everything up to the legislature. Not the Governor and not the people.

interim Senator, just keep your fingers crossed that he chooses someone with the determination to follow through with Senator Kennedy's work. Big shoes to fill, how many in the state are man enough to tackle the issues with the same dedication and drive?

I hope we see the law changed, I hope also that whoever is chosen knows he must fill pretty big shoes. No wall flowers or yes men. Man or woman, we need a big voice to be heard for the sake of all Americans.

and forget about changing the law once again. This law was changed when Mitt Romney was governor to prevent him from appointing a replacement. I don't need an appointment. I need an election. If Gov. Patrick tries to change the law back once again, there will be political fallout from whatever remains of the Republican Party here and who needs that? Look what happened when NY got an appointment from Hillary Clinton leaving. Disaster. I want to vote.

145 days(or close to that). A change would bring a replacement sooner.

no matter what.

BTW, nothing is up to the Governor, unless the Legislature decides he can make an interim appointment. See the 17th amendment to the COTUS. If by "here" you mean Massachusetts, the legislature is almost 100% Democratic.

Besides, anyone who understands the Constitution and the history of the 17th amendment could make the Republicans in Massachusetts, such as they are, sit down and shut up. Political decisions about filling Senate vacancies were ALWAYS contemplated by the COTUS.

I bet if we were to check the states around the country, things like this have been happening since 1789.

politicians can be petty, self serving, and political parties can view the law as their plaything.

This is true.

In the past many of us have condemned this. Now we celebrate it.

So you're also saying that dems are as hypocritical and cynical as repubs.

I'm far from sure this isn't also true, but I'd really prefer to not agree with you in this.

However, there's political fall out. In the long term, all it does is make people more cynical about politicians. I remember a recent politician trying to combat this.

I guess he was just being cynical and hypocritical and deserves no more respect--apart from getting power for us and people like us--than any other politician. Same old/same old, tired ideologies to the fore, the only hope is that we can shove through our agenda over the screaming opponent, and the only change is that we've reversed kto and kogo, man and man. ("In capitalism, man oppresses man; under socialism, it's the other way around"). More change of the "more things change" variety. Yawn.

Personally, I have my cynical moments, but I try to lead my life and politics in such a way as to not increase the amount of cynicism in the world. There's already too much. Treating the law as a party's play thing *is* possible, and it happened and happens, to be sure. But there's a difference between saying what is, is, and saying what is is good.

In any event, check out how many votes Senator Kennedy was there for in the last 9 months. Then look at how urgent it is that Massachusetts have two senators there to vote. Do the math, and then report back on the observed "delta cynicism."

on this vacancy or would prohibitions against ex post facto legislation apply? Perhaps it would fall into the category where consequences of a new law could be immediately applied.

bottom line, no problem. If you like, the thread was called Want a Constructive Way to Honor Senator Kennedy, or something like that.