This article from TPM media details Senator Kennedy's request that the Commonwealth change the method of replacing a Senator who leaves office mid term. He would like to have the governor appoint a successor. That was the method before the General Court changed it in 2004 when the possibility of Senator Kerry being elected President would have allowed ...
... Governor Romney to appoint a new Senator. The current law requires a special election with 160 days.
Here is JimC at Blue Mass Group with his take.
What do you think should be done?
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Senator Kennedy asks for change in replacement policy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
25 comments:
Of course he wants it changed. He wants to keep it in the family. Let the process happen. We need new blood. Not someone who will tow the party line.
Of course he wants it changed so as not to risk a filibuster proof majority on the health care vote should he be unable to attend the vote. Same old same old.
Actually the successor would be interim, until the special election is complete. This gives Massachusetts equality among the other States. Good job Senator Kennedy
Ray,
Did Senator Kennedy do a bad job when he pushed to create the current system when Romney was the Governor? What a crock!
Speaking of people who can't think for themselves and therefore always carry the part line and then who but Ray enters the converstation. Talk about putty in the Aristocricy's hands.
How is agreeing with senator Kennedy on this issue partisan, most rational people realize Massachusetts would have one less vote if an interim Senator was not in place. We need to have two votes just like every other state.
Ray you seem to forget most anonymous bloggers are not rational and are usually hiding something, mostly their identity because they are afraid of being confronted head on.
I believe in fairness to the people of the commonwealth, the Govenor should appoint a senator of the same party affiliation as the previous Senator until the next election. Whether the seat was held by a Republican or a Democrat, the people voted in a particular party and should be held by that party until a scheduled regular or special election.
Ray,
I assume that means you didn't support the 204 state democrats who changed the law because they were afraid Romney would have placed a Republican in the seat if Kerry had defeated Bush. Am I correct? The dems can't have it both ways. I say lets finalize it. Either let the governor appoint forever, or have a special election with no interim placement. One way or the other.
If my idea was part of the legislation, the democrats wouldnt have to worry about losing that seat to another party until an election. If the Govenor has to replace the vacant seat with the same party of the previous Senator, I believe that is a fairest way
Which Kennedy wants to run for a seat now?
Letter from Sen Edward Kennedy-In 2004, as you know, the law was changed to provide for a special election to choose a new Senator to serve for the remainder of an unexpired term. The law now mandates that a special election be held 145 to 160 days after a Senate seat becomes vacant. I strongly support that law and the principle that the people should elect their Senator ... 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. To ensure a fair election process, I also urge that the Governor obtain, as a condition of appointment of the interim Senator, an explicit personal commitment not to become a candidate in the special election.
we are not looking to go back to the old law, the interim appointment would only span the 145-160 until a special election NOT the remainder of the term.
Leave the current law alone....Sen. Kennedy's intentions are good, but he is simply trying to ensure a reliable health care vote should the need occur. The motives are not good. Have the debate in Congress and ensure each vote is taken based upon the current membership. If the senator wants to resign now, the law says an election must be held WITHIN 160 days. Nothing prevents it from happening sooner. I wish the senator well, but laws cannot be amended simply for political gain. Unfrotunately, that bis what was done in 2004. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this debate right now.
What's the chance that, if you're a Kennedy, anything goes, at least in their mind. And people let them get away with it.
I still have a bad taste in my mouth over Mary Jo Kopechne. Anyone remember her?? Ray???
I still firmly believe that the people of Massachusetts would be under-represented with this current law. Lets appoint for 145-160 days and have an election...which also can not include the interim Senator. I would even put an amendment to this law stating the appointment must be of the same party as the previous holder, because that was the will of the people to elect that specific party.
Republican State Senators offered an amendment to the 2004 which would have allowed the Governor to appoint an interim US Senator until a special election could be held...if it was a good idea then...why not now?
Ray,
What happened to the interim apointment. I am not arguing your suggestion namely, just that the democrats use it always to their advantage yet claim to be the party of the people. They are as crooked as others claim the Republicans are. Period.
The interim was the suggestion of the MA GOP in 2004 when the Democtrats took the power away from Romney. The interim would have only 160 days in office and would act ass a bridge until the next election....now the GOP says that same amendment isn't a good idea.
Ray missing my point... Why do you think the democrats took the power from Romney????? Honestly... Don't you think it had to do with a potential Kerry victory, and rather than let Romney appoint a Republican, they felt safer with an election. Here's my question: Do you agree with my anaylsis? Don't tell me about the people should choose. I agree. Just talk about the motives of the democrats.
it seems to be a partisan pushing match GOP vs Dems and both are at fault...dems for changing the law and the GOP for opposing an amendment they supported in 2004
I'm a lifelong Democrat and I say "no" to this political tomfoolery. When Mitt Romney was Governor, the Democratically-controlled Legislature took away the Governor's right to appoint. Why? Because lawmakers were afraid he might appoint a Republican if John Kerry was elected President. Now, with a Democrat in the Governor's Office, some want to restore the right. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple.
because that was the will of the people to elect that specific party.
The will of the PEOPLE was to elect a specific PERSON not party. Independent voters decide elections. TO limit a Governor to selecting from within a party takes away the RIGHT of a Governor to name a successor until a vote comes up.
God Bless Senator Kennedy and his family
Ever read your history, Ray? Ever hear of a bridge on Chappaquiddick? Ever hear of the name Mary Jo Kopechne?
You weren't born then. Ask around. I doubt you will read it in the history books, though. That kind of skeleton may not be put in for future generations to know about, if you're a Kennedy. After all, no Kennedy ever did or could do anything wrong.
One of Senator Ted's finest moments.
When all the accolades start, you can be sure no one will remember that chapter in Senator Ted's history.
Post a Comment