Kennedy requests change in MA senate succession law

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Sorry, Ted.  I may have voted for you last go around, but I'm calling bullsh**t on this:


Kennedy, looking ahead, urges that Senate seat be filled quickly

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, in a poignant acknowledgment of his mortality at a critical time in the national health care debate, has privately asked the governor and legislative leaders to change the succession law to guarantee that Massachusetts will not lack a Senate vote when his seat becomes vacant.

In a personal, sometimes wistful letter sent Tuesday to Governor Deval L. Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray, and House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, Kennedy asks that Patrick be given authority to appoint someone to the seat temporarily before voters choose a new senator in a special election.


In case anyone doesn't remember, Democrats scrambled to create this "no appointee/quick special election" law in 2004 to keep then-Governor Mitt Romney from being able to name a Republican (presumably then-LG Kerry Healey) to Kerry's seat.

[Brittain33]

This is one of those things like the filibuster or gerrymandering that no one should expect any party not to behave in a partisan manner about.

[opebo]

Sorry, Ted.  I may have voted for you last go around, but I'm calling bullsh**t on this:

In case anyone doesn't remember, Democrats scrambled to create this "no appointee/quick special election" law in 2004 to keep then-Governor Mitt Romney from being able to name a Republican (presumably then-LG Kerry Healey) to Kerry's seat.

If by 'bullsh**t' you mean good, then I agree.

[Brittain33]

Besides, all this law would do is provide for interim representation before a special election when the seat would otherwise be empty. His wife explicitly ruled herself out for appointment. The caretaker would have to be a caretaker and not run for the seat.

I'm changing my mind. What is the virtue in having the seat be completely empty for several months?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Besides, all this law would do is provide for interim representation before a special election when the seat would otherwise be empty. His wife explicitly ruled herself out for appointment. The caretaker would have to be a caretaker and not run for the seat.

I'm changing my mind. What is the virtue in having the seat be completely empty for several months?

For the record, I did not support the leave-the-seat-empty-just-to-screw-Republicans law in 2004, and I think it should be repealed. There was no merit then to screwing the state over for partisan reasons.

I'm just calling them out on a blatantly partisan move to—again—change election law just to favor the ruling party.

[Purple State]

Besides, all this law would do is provide for interim representation before a special election when the seat would otherwise be empty. His wife explicitly ruled herself out for appointment. The caretaker would have to be a caretaker and not run for the seat.

I'm changing my mind. What is the virtue in having the seat be completely empty for several months?

For the record, I did not support the leave-the-seat-empty-just-to-screw-Republicans law in 2004, and I think it should be repealed. There was no merit then to screwing the state over for partisan reasons.

I'm just calling them out on a blatantly partisan move to—again—change election law just to favor the ruling party.

Unfortunately, that is politics. It sucks, but now the law can't be repealed unless someone blatantly plays politics to get it done.

[Dan the Roman]

I wonder what they will do when Charlie Baker is elected next year? Change it again.

I told my State Senator that I felt the vacancy law was not only vindictive and stupid, but potentially unconstitutional when passed. I feel slightly vindicated on that, though not in a good way.

This may well not happen however. Therese Murry and Bob DeLeo hate Patrick and will do nothing to assist him, and even Kennedy is on questionable terms with them. The most they might get is placeholder with the proviso he/she not be a candidate in the special election.

As for who Romney would appoint, I think they were less scared of Romney appointing a hard-right candidate as someone who might be reelected. Massachusetts has trouble electing Republicans, but once in office tends to reelect them. See Scott Brown or Joe Malone. There were concerns not just about Healey, but about former Suffolk DA Ralph Martin or Senators Tarr or Lees, all of whom might have proven very difficult to dislodge in a Kerry midterm.

[Lunar]

It seems reasonable, considering the importance of 60 votes, to have a temporary 2 month Senator or what have you while the voters elect a new one.  Texas does that.

[Хahar 🤔]

Eh, I figure that when you have as big a majority as the Massachusetts Democratic Party does, you can be as blatantly partisan as you want.

[Purple State]

Eh, I figure that when you have as big a majority as the Massachusetts Democratic Party does, you can be as blatantly partisan as you want.

Well, they certainly don't have much of a backlash to fear. It's tough to imagine the Ivy liberals throwing out the Democrats for blatant partisanship. Hell, I can't even imagine New York kicking out enough incumbents in state government to effect meaningful change in the load we call our representatives and our "Senate Coup" was worse than any of this Massachusetts business.

[Dan the Roman]

Eh, I figure that when you have as big a majority as the Massachusetts Democratic Party does, you can be as blatantly partisan as you want.

Except partisan in Massachusetts speak is Anti- and Pro-Deval Patrick. Kennedy and Kerry are clearly in Patrick's court, the legislature clearly against them or at least its leadership. The leadership not only ruled out this rule change when Kerry was looking to be appointed Secretary of State, but ruled up even allowing it for a vote. So far, they have indicated they have zero intention of changing the law.

[Lief 🗽]

This is sad. Poor Ted Kennedy. He spends his entire career fighting for health care and he probably won't live to vote on it.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Well, MA got what it asked for.

[fezzyfestoon]

Convenient, yet shockingly immature and partisan.  And I doubt anyone in the state has the balls to dare stand up to a Kennedy and actually call bullsh**t.

[Rowan]

What are Mary Jo's thoughts on this?

[Brittain33]

Convenient, yet shockingly immature and partisan.

Really? Asking them to change the law to appoint a caretaker instead of having a vacancy is such a godawful thing for him to ask?

It's partisan, sure, but I don't think it's particularly bad for partisanship, nor is it "immature." It's not like Kennedy drew up the first law change.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's definitely a blatantly political effort to keep the 60 votes to break a united GOP filibuster in play.

Considering that his deteriorating condition has been evident for some time, if Kennedy was truly all that worried about Massachusetts having only a single Senator, he should have resigned his seat some months ago, maybe even soon enough for a special election for the seat to be held in conjunction with the 2008 general election.

[Purple State]

It's definitely a blatantly political effort to keep the 60 votes to break a united GOP filibuster in play.

Considering that his deteriorating condition has been evident for some time, if Kennedy was truly all that worried about Massachusetts having only a single Senator, he should have resigned his seat some months ago, maybe even soon enough for a special election for the seat to be held in conjunction with the 2008 general election.

I would imagine he didn't exactly plan on dying. Some people actually hold out hope of living to fulfill their dreams someday.

[Alexander Hamilton]

It's definitely a blatantly political effort to keep the 60 votes to break a united GOP filibuster in play.

Considering that his deteriorating condition has been evident for some time, if Kennedy was truly all that worried about Massachusetts having only a single Senator, he should have resigned his seat some months ago, maybe even soon enough for a special election for the seat to be held in conjunction with the 2008 general election.

I would imagine he didn't exactly plan on dying. Some people actually hold out hope of living to fulfill their dreams someday.

Should've thought of that in 2004. You can't pick and choose who laws apply to. It's just not right.

[Landslide Lyndon]

It's definitely a blatantly political effort to keep the 60 votes to break a united GOP filibuster in play.

Considering that his deteriorating condition has been evident for some time, if Kennedy was truly all that worried about Massachusetts having only a single Senator, he should have resigned his seat some months ago, maybe even soon enough for a special election for the seat to be held in conjunction with the 2008 general election.

I would imagine he didn't exactly plan on dying. Some people actually hold out hope of living to fulfill their dreams someday.

Should've thought of that in 2004. You can't pick and choose who laws apply to. It's just not right.

Remind me what exactly was Kennedy's role in crafting and passing that law.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's definitely a blatantly political effort to keep the 60 votes to break a united GOP filibuster in play.

Considering that his deteriorating condition has been evident for some time, if Kennedy was truly all that worried about Massachusetts having only a single Senator, he should have resigned his seat some months ago, maybe even soon enough for a special election for the seat to be held in conjunction with the 2008 general election.

I would imagine he didn't exactly plan on dying. Some people actually hold out hope of living to fulfill their dreams someday.

True, and while I won't blame him for not resigning in time for a 2008 election, he hasn't cast a single vote in the Senate in three months.

[Brittain33]

True, and while I won't blame him for not resigning in time for a 2008 election, he hasn't cast a single vote in the Senate in three months.

I believe he hasn't resigned because he feels he has to be there in case they need his vote on the final bill or final conference bill. Even if he can't participate, he will fly down to Washington to be there. If he'd resigned in May the seat would still be empty now.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Convenient, yet shockingly immature and partisan.

Really? Asking them to change the law to appoint a caretaker instead of having a vacancy is such a godawful thing for him to ask?

It's partisan, sure, but I don't think it's particularly bad for partisanship, nor is it "immature." It's not like Kennedy drew up the first law change.

To be fair, it was the 2004 law—which Kennedy supported, by the way—that was the partisan and immature one. It's just that Democrats finally see how stupid and short sided it is now that they're on the other end of the sword.

[fezzyfestoon]

Convenient, yet shockingly immature and partisan.

Really? Asking them to change the law to appoint a caretaker instead of having a vacancy is such a godawful thing for him to ask?

It's partisan, sure, but I don't think it's particularly bad for partisanship, nor is it "immature." It's not like Kennedy drew up the first law change.

To be fair, it was the 2004 law—which Kennedy supported, by the way—that was the partisan and immature one. It's just that Democrats finally see how stupid and short sided it is now that they're on the other end of the sword.

Exactly.  Kennedy just wants what he wants when he wants it.  Before it was insurance against a Republican colleague, now it's insurance for his pet project.  You can't have it both ways.  That is unless you're a Kennedy in Massachusetts, then you can have it any way you'd like.

[JWHart]

It's definitely a blatantly political effort to keep the 60 votes to break a united GOP filibuster in play.

Considering that his deteriorating condition has been evident for some time, if Kennedy was truly all that worried about Massachusetts having only a single Senator, he should have resigned his seat some months ago, maybe even soon enough for a special election for the seat to be held in conjunction with the 2008 general election.

I would imagine he didn't exactly plan on dying. Some people actually hold out hope of living to fulfill their dreams someday.

Should've thought of that in 2004. You can't pick and choose who laws apply to. It's just not right.

So, once a law is passed, it's not right to ever repeal or modify it, ever again?

Incidentally, I support a constitutional amendment making this approach (used in Texas, of all places) mandatory for senate vacancies nation-wide. No unelected Senators serving for years on end, and no seats sitting empty for months.