CLT UPDATE
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
A Timeline of Shameless Political Hypocrisy
“Power corrupts,
absolute power corrupts absolutely”
Ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy's request
that Beacon Hill leaders rewrite state law to allow a temporary
gubernatorial appointee in case of his death threw Democrats into
cautious confusion Thursday, while Republicans attacked the proposal as
politically driven.
In a letter dated July 2 and delivered Wednesday, Kennedy, stricken with
terminal brain cancer and said to be gravely ill, told state leaders he
wants them to grant Gov. Deval Patrick authority to appoint a U.S.
senator for an interim of 145 to 160 days during the vacancy of a seat
and the run-up to a special election, with the appointee explicitly
pledging not to contend. The vote of the Democratic senator Patrick
would presumably appoint could be vital to the passage of federal health
care reform, which Kennedy has called the cause of his life....
In 2004, in the face of rising Democratic optimism that Kerry would be
elected president and a rush to strip Romney of his Senate appointment
power, Democrats in both chambers voted against a GOP amendment that
essentially mirrored the interim appointment model Kennedy proposed....
House Minority Leader Bradley Jones said he was "stunned at the
incredible hypocrisy that could be expected to unfold."
"Given that a great many of the leadership voted against the change in
2004, one would hope for some consistency," Jones said.
Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei agreed, saying, "It was brushed
aside, and the people who were for changing the law were very vocal, so
I just don't see how they do a 180 and oppose what they were very much
in favor of." ...
Kennedy's own state senator, Robert O'Leary, said he would "absolutely"
sponsor legislation granting Kennedy's wish....
He brushed off concerns that legislative Democrats would appear
hypocritical due to their vote in 2004 to strip Romney, a Republican, of
appointment power.
"I think of this not as a turning back on that, but a small, little
adjustment, and I think it's a wise one considering the stakes involved
in Washington around health care," O'Leary said.
State House News Service
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Kennedy succession plan casts Hill into confusion mode
Kennedy’s request puts Massachusetts lawmakers in a delicate
position. On one hand, his personal appeal would probably have some sway.
But resistance on Beacon Hill to tinkering with the 2004 law is strong, with
Democratic lawmakers nervous about being accused of engineering a self-serving
change to help their party.
Massachusetts governors used to have the power to fill Senate vacancies, as
happens in many other states, until the Legislature made the change five years
ago.
Democratic lawmakers, then as now in the majority, did not want to give Governor
Mitt Romney the chance to fill Kerry’s seat with a Republican if Kerry won the
presidency.
Patrick, meanwhile, has dismissed past suggestions that the state change the law
back to give him the power to fill a Senate vacancy.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Kennedy ... Seeks law change for interim post
Legislative leaders and Patrick have been cool to Kennedy's
request, but a pair of lawmakers, Sen. Robert O'Leary (D-Barnstable) and Rep.
Robert Koczera (D-New Bedford) are trying to generate support for it, with the
latter asking Patrick to consider calling lawmakers back to Beacon Hill to act
on the matter....
Republican lawmakers on Thursday ripped Kennedy's plan, labeling it a political
power play and noting Democrats rejected a similar proposal five years ago....
House Minority Leader Bradley Jones on Friday pounced on Koczera's criticism.
Noting Koczera in 2004 voted against a Republican-sponsored interim appointee
amendment and took to the House floor to push for the proposal's defeat, Jones
reiterated his claim that Democrats were contemplating politically-based public
policy changes....
Jones reiterated his beef that Democrats appeared to be engineering policy based
on political circumstances rather than the state's best interests, saying the
plan wouldn't be under discussion if Kennedy weren't ill or if Republican Kerry
Healey had beaten Patrick in the 2006 gubernatorial election.
Jones said, "If we had not changed the law in 2004 at all, this conversation
wouldn't be happening right now."
State House News Service
Friday, August 21, 2009
Members start push behind Kennedy succession plan
Today Kennedy is gravely ill with brain cancer, but his
political instincts are as sharp as ever. Given his condition, the letter he
sent to Massachusetts political leaders last week could not help but generate a
fresh wave of sympathy. “I am now writing to you,’’ it reads, “about an issue
that concerns me deeply - the continuity of representation for Massachusetts,
should a vacancy occur.’’ As a human being, Kennedy is surely grateful for that
sympathy. As a canny political navigator, he reckons it may provide the cover
needed to change Massachusetts law to benefit his party.
Kennedy wants the Legislature to upend the succession law it passed in 2004,
when - at his urging - it stripped away the governor’s longstanding power to
temporarily fill a Senate vacancy. Back then, John Kerry was a presidential
candidate and Republican Mitt Romney was governor; Kennedy lobbied state
Democrats to change the law so that Romney couldn’t name Kerry’s successor.
They followed his advice with gusto. When the final vote took place, the Boston
Globe reported, “hooting and hollering broke out on the usually staid House
floor,’’ and House Speaker Thomas Finneran acknowledged candidly: “It’s a
political deal. It’s very raw politics.’’
It still is.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Kennedy should resign
By Jeff Jacoby
A Republican state lawmaker on Monday argued that a proposal
to allow the governor to temporarily fill a vacant U.S. Senate seat is
unconstitutional.
Ipswich Rep. Brad Hill, on NECN’s Broadside, said the proposal, filed by Rep.
Robert Koczera (D-New Bedford), could not legally preclude the temporary
appointee from running for an open seat. “I don’t think you can tell somebody
they can’t run for Senate even though they said they won’t,” Hill said.
State House News Service
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Rep: Barring temporary appointment
from senate seat unconstitutional
For 215 years, Senate vacancies in Massachusetts were
filled by gubernatorial appointment, which could be for a period as long
as two years. The law was changed five years ago, requiring a special
election. I support a special election, however, an interim appointment
such as I have suggested, will ensure that Massachusetts citizens will
not lack representation in the Senate on the important issues of the
day. I believe my legislation is in the public interest....
The Massachusetts Legislature should enact this legislation in an
expeditious manner to ensure that we have two voices and two votes this
fall when the Senate takes up health care legislation. My bill for an
interim senator should have bipartisan support.
Then again, the special election law that passed five years ago should
have had bipartisan support. It did not. In memory of Senator Kennedy,
let us reach across the aisle.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Five months is too long to wait
By [State Rep.] Robert Koczera
Love of sports and politics runs deep in Massachusetts. And
if I said that the rules of the game for the Boston Red Sox should be changed
after the first pitch or for the New England Patriots after the opening kickoff,
I would be run out of town on the nearest rail.
The same principle should apply with regard to filling our vacant seat in the
United States Senate: Do not change the rules in the middle of the game. ...
Five years ago, when it seemed that Republican Governor Mitt Romney might get an
appointment to fill Senator John Kerry’s seat, the Democratic House and Senate
hastily passed a law stripping the governor of the appointment power. They did
so, ostensibly, in the name of democracy and letting the voters choose.
As a recent Globe editorial acknowledged, “Everyone already knows that blatant
politics compelled the Legislature’s Democratic majority to create this mess in
2004.” The Legislature did so at the urging of Senator Kennedy. We should not
compound that mess by again changing the rules for personal, philosophical, or
partisan interest.
Any change to the law now would be to change the rules in the middle of the game
- and should be something any self-respecting Massachusetts politician - or
sports fan - should oppose.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Don’t change rules mid-game
By [State Rep.] Bradley H. Jones Jr.
It’s looking like state lawmakers might do the right thing
and grant one of Senator Ted Kennedy’s final wishes, installing somebody to act
in his stead until voters choose a permanent replacement.
That somebody should be Mike Dukakis....
A turn in the Senate would be a capstone for his career, and a tribute he
deserves.
It would be a tribute to Kennedy, too. Because, like the senator, the man who
would be taking his vote on health care reform would be one of the last of an
increasingly rare breed of politician in this state that was once famous for it:
someone who knows what he stands for, and makes no bones about it.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, August 30, 2009
A seat fit for Dukakis
By Yvonne Abraham
Perhaps if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had expressed
this much concern for the citizens of Massachusetts when his friend Ted Kennedy
was alive we could take his solicitations more seriously now that Kennedy has
passed away.
But it is impossible to envision Reid or his spokesman uttering these words even
a few weeks ago, or upon learning of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s cancer diagnosis
last year:
“With so many important matters to be decided, the people of the commonwealth
need two senators to represent Massachusetts . . . ”
The truth, of course, is that there were important matters to be decided - the
federal stimulus bill; the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor; an
update to laws on warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists - and Kennedy
was, sadly, not there to help decide them. Nor was Reid wringing his hands over
it then.
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, August 31, 2009
Bad politics, policy
The governor today set Jan. 19 as the date of the special
election to fill the vacant seat of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. The primary will be
Dec. 8....
The announcement does not stop the governor from appointing a temporary
replacement for Kennedy, if the Legislature approves such a move.
Earlier today, Democratic lawmakers hit the gas on a push to appoint a temporary
successor to Kennedy, moving up a public hearing on the legislation to Sept. 9
at 1 p.m.
The Boston Herald
Monday, August 31, 2009
Vicki won’t take it,
but Dems push to appoint Ted successor
A state legislative committee, meanwhile, will hold a hearing
next week on a bill to allow Patrick to appoint an interim senator while the
special election is held, a signal that Beacon Hill is moving to accommodate
Edward Kennedy’s request that Massachusetts maintain two voices in the Senate
while voters select his successor.
The House and Senate chairmen of the Joint Committee on Election Laws announced
they had moved the hearing date from early October to Sept. 9. The bill could
come to the floor of both the House and Senate within days after the hearing....
Republicans charge that the Democrats are just trying to make a power grab. In
2004, the Democrat-controlled Legislature took the power to fill a vacant Senate
away from then-governor Mitt Romney because lawmakers did not want him to have
the chance, in the event Senator John F. Kerry won the presidency, to fill his
seat with a Republican. That new law created the special election process.
State Representative George N. Peterson Jr., who supported giving the governor
interim appointment powers in the debate over the law in 2004, said he will vote
“present’’ because he said Democrats are acting out of purely political motives.
“It’s too bad we are changing laws based on politics and not about the best
interests of Massachusetts,’’ said Peterson, the House assistant minority
leader.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Jan. 19 set for Senate election
Politicians learned long ago that one of the privileges of
power is rigging the system to help your party and hurt the other. What they
never seem to learn is how easily that trick can backfire. The shackles you
fashion for your opponents can wind up on your own wrists....
Massachusetts Democrats are suffering their own self-inflicted wound. In 2004,
when Sen. John Kerry was running for president, they wanted to block Republican
Gov. Mitt Romney from choosing a successor if Kerry won. With control of the
Legislature, they passed a law taking away the governor’s appointment power and
requiring special elections to fill vacancies. It was political gamesmanship,
though it also had the virtue of empowering the people to choose their own
senator.
But today, many of those lawmakers are not content for virtue to be its own
reward....
The rationale of supporters is that they don’t want the state to be without two
senators for five months. But that prospect didn’t bother them back in 2004.
A Chicago Tribune editorial
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
How power plays backfire
Democrats from Beacon Hill to Capitol Hill ramped up pressure
on state lawmakers yesterday to allow Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint a temporary
U.S. senator as legislators remained divided on the issue.
Patrick again praised the idea of a short-term appointment - requested by the
late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy himself - as an “elegant compromise,” while U.S.
Rep. William Delahunt warned the Bay State would suffer without the seat....
The 2004 change - instigated by Kennedy - was to prevent former Gov. Mitt
Romney, a Republican, from appointing a Republican to the Senate should U.S.
Sen. John F. Kerry have won that year’s presidential election.
“It just seems like it’s not the right thing to do at this time,” said state
Rep. John Binienda (D-Worcester).
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Democrats hot to keep seat warm
U.S. Sen. John Kerry will join union leaders in the push to
let Gov. Deval Patrick appoint an interim U.S. senator at a Beacon Hill hearing
next week.
Representatives from the Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts and the
greater Boston Labor Council also sent letters of support yesterday....
Lawmakers have been divided about the controversial measure, requested by the
late U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, because the Legislature just took appointment
power away from then-Gov. Mitt Romney in 2004. Kennedy requested that change
then in case Kerry was elected president.
Outraged Republicans have called the move hypocrisy, designed to help push
through health-care reform.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Sen. John Kerry backs interim Senator push
You just gotta love Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for an
astonishing burst of candor the other day in an interview with the Reno Gazette
Journal. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy had just barely been laid to rest when the
Nevada Democrat blurted out this about the impact of Kennedy’s death on pending
health-care legislation:
“I think it’s going to help us. He hasn’t been around for some time....”
Those in the Legislature considering putting their reputations on the line to
accommodate Reid’s “urgent” plea for a temporary appointee might just want to
think this through again.
A Boston Herald editorial
Friday, September 4, 2009
Reid sinks his own case
Today's hearing before the Joint Committee on Elections marks
a test for Massachusetts’ legislative leaders. With the death of Senator Edward
M. Kennedy, Massachusetts risks being without a senator for five months. The
Legislature should allow an interim appointment to make sure that the state
doesn’t go without representation. It is as basic a task as any handled on
Beacon Hill.
But the task is complicated because the Democratic supermajority in both houses
used its veto-proof power five years ago to take away the right of the
then-Republican governor to make an interim appointment. And the new leaders of
those same majorities worry that changing course would alert the world to the
crass, partisan nature of that earlier exercise of power. So the decision on
whether to allow an interim appointment has become tangled up in legislative
vanity.
A Boston Globe editorial
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Representation in US Senate or vanity on Beacon Hill?
By now, everyone knows the partisan past that’s prologue
here. Beacon Hill Democrats, urged on by none other than Kennedy himself,
changed the law in 2004 to establish a special election. It was a power grab,
motivated by their desire not to let Republican Mitt Romney appoint someone for
the last two years of John Kerry’s Senate term if Kerry won the presidency.
Democratic lawmakers changed the process by establishing a special election to
fill a vacant Senate seat. They also voted down a GOP amendment to allow for a
interim appointment while that election took place. In 2006, Democrats rejected
further Republican attempts to provide for an interim appointment....
All that said, House minority leader Brad Jones does raise a good point when he
wonders how anyone can have any confidence that Democrats won’t change the law
yet again if a Republican wins the corner office and another Senate vacancy
looms. There are no guarantees, of course, but I suspect that even the
Legislature would blanch at a further flip-flop that was that blatantly cynical.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Lawmakers, what’s best for state?
By Scot Lehigh
U.S. Sen. John Kerry said the late U.S. Sen. Edward M.
Kennedy made a mistake in 2004 when he pushed legislators to strip former Gov.
Mitt Romney of his power to appoint a successor.
Kerry made the surprising disclosure during an impassioned and emotional
testimony supporting a controversial push to allow Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint
a temporary U.S. Senator today.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Kerry: Kennedy erred in 04 succession debate
Senator John F. Kerry joined dozens of residents, public
officials, and labor representatives yesterday in urging state lawmakers to give
Governor Deval Patrick the power to appoint an interim senator to fill Edward M.
Kennedy’s seat for five months....
Kerry’s testimony highlighted a packed hearing that lasted more than five hours
in a State House auditorium, where lawmakers weighed the value of having full
representation in the Senate - at a time of big-ticket policy proposals, chiefly
President Obama’s controversial health care plan - against the political
consequences of almost certainly helping the Democratic majority on Capitol Hill
tighten its grip on power....
State Senator Jack Hart, a South Boston Democrat, said his constituents have
been calling and are overwhelmingly skeptical about “political chicanery, the
sense of a sleight of hand.’’
“All of us on the panel have some thinking to do about . . . the benefits and
what’s best for the state versus the fact that many people in Massachusetts are
a little bit tired of what they see from this Legislature, which is not held in
the highest regards,’’ he said....
“If Kerry Healey were governor today, would you be here advocating as strong as
you are now?’’ asked state Representative Paul Frost, an Auburn Republican,
referring to the Republican candidate for governor in 2006 and spurring applause
from the audience in Gardner Auditorium.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Kerry joins the call for interim senator
U.S. Sen. John Kerry is making personal calls to on-the-fence
lawmakers today asking them to support an interim U.S. Senator as national
Democrats ramp up pressure for the measure....
Many state legislators are leery of the bill, which would allow Gov. Deval
Patrick to appoint a temporary senator, because they voted to strip the governor
of appointing powers in 2004 to prevent Gov. Mitt Romney from appointing a
Republican. A Senate seat could have become vacant if Kerry won the presidential
election....
The vote - which could happen as soon as Thursday - is close, especially in the
Senate.
The Boston Herald
Monday, September 14, 2009
Kerry making calls to push Kennedy bill on Beacon Hill
House and Senate lawmakers are deeply divided over whether to
give Governor Deval Patrick the authority to appoint an interim US senator to
Edward M. Kennedy’s seat, even as top Democrats ramp up their lobbying for a
measure that could come up for a vote as early as Thursday....
But with the level of support in the House and Senate uncertain, the fate of the
legislation may well depend on how hard Murray and House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo
advocate for it. Both have been meeting behind closed doors, but have remained
publicly noncommittal.
“They can pressure all they want, but until DeLeo and [Senate President] Therese
Murray are decided on what they want, it’s basically moot,’’ state
Representative John Binienda, a Worcester Democrat who opposes the change, said
of proponents of the change. “Let’s face it: If they decide either way, that’s
the way that it will be pushed. If they decide they want it to pass, the bill
will not be put forth into either chamber until they have the votes.’’ ...
Meanwhile, Republicans are vowing to use parliamentary maneuvers to stall the
legislation for several weeks, setting up a bruising political battle that would
make it essential for top lawmakers to have votes secured ahead of time.
“If they want to do it, they’ll find a way to do it, and they’ll squash us,’’
said Senate minority leader Richard Tisei, a Wakefield Republican. “But still,
we could hold it up for a good amount of time, not for months, but for weeks.’’
“We would do it, absolutely,’’ he added. “It’s unfair to change the rules of the
game when the process is already under way.’’ ...
The Legislature’s Joint Committee on Election Laws last week held a hearing on
the issue. Some lawmakers worry they will look hypocritical, because of their
actions in 2004.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Lawmakers divided on filling seat
Interim senator appointment debated
Patrick has signaled privately that he’d like to sign the
bill by Friday and make an appointment within days, possibly having an interim
senator in place by next week....
One high-ranking Senate official familiar with the vote count said the numbers
are there for passage - but narrowly. It is that chamber that Republican Richard
Tisei, the Senate minority leader, will try to table the bill with the hopes of
delaying it beyond its usefulness, or shaming Democrats who are on the fence
over to his side.
“The fact that they think this is going to move like a knife through a stick of
butter - that this is going to be a ‘shazamm’ bill that goes through - well,
it’s not,’’ Tisei said in an interview last night. “We’re going to slow it
down.’’
Republicans don’t oppose the concept of an interim senator, but they think it’s
unfair for Democrats to change the law for this appointment....
The legislation, which went out at 11 p.m. Monday to members of the committee,
would require any appointee to come from the same political party as the person
who previously held the office. The appointee would serve for about four months,
until a special election on Jan. 19 fills the seat for the remaining two years
of Kennedy’s term....
The 17-member committee was told to register their votes by 11 p.m. tonight. The
committee cochairs both expect it to be approved, but not without opposition.
“I believe that the time has elapsed for our opportunity to do something,’’ said
state Representative Paul Kujawski, a Democrat from Webster and a committee
member who plans to vote against the change. “We changed the law, we’ve made a
commitment. . . . I believe that’s what we have to stick by.’’
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Votes are lined up to appoint a senator
Top Democrats press for Mass. bill
No, legislative drafters want to make sure even if the
governorship should change parties and fall into the hands of - oh, horrors! - a
Republican, that the seat would continue to be a Democratic one virtually in
perpetuity.
Yes, the legislation on which members of the Election Laws Committee are
currently being polled would specify that the governor would make the interim
appointment and that “any person so appointed shall be of the same political
party as the person vacating the office and thereby creating the vacancy.”
Perhaps Republican contender Charlie Baker should be flattered that Democratic
lawmakers are, well, planning ahead - not making the same “mistake” they made
when they took the appointment power away from Gov. Mitt Romney.
Oh, and since they wisely discovered they really can’t legally block an
appointee from running for the office, they’ll settle for a joint resolution
expressing disapproval should that happen.
Lawmakers should be embarrassed to sign on to this - even more so now than in
its original version.
A Boston Herald editorial
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Have they no shame?
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
There's a lot of news, more
political machinations going on up at the State House. It's been
moving quietly over the back end of summer, and I've been saving it for
the right moment. It's been evolving since U.S. Senator Ted
Kennedy did an about face and sent a letter recommending a change in the
law he recommended be changed back in 2004, when a Republican held the
office of governor with the possibility of appointing John Kerry's
replacement.
Tomorrow it comes to a
head, when the state House of Representatives takes up the bill to
overturn the law they passed for partisan political advantage a mere
five years ago, the last Democrat power grab.
There are two hypocrisies
to bear in mind:
Hypocrisy 1 --
Changing the law, again: When it looked possible that U.S.
presidential candidate U.S. Senator John Kerry might be elected, the
Democrats jumped through hoops to quickly pass a new law. It
removed the appointment authority from the governor -- then Mitt Romney,
a Republican -- and set up a system for a quick special election to
replace our U.S. senator. This would have prevented Romney from
appointing a member of his party to replace John Kerry, which the
Democrats could not abide. Changing the law again, already, is
political opportunism stripped of any veneer, a shameless hypocrisy only
capable where incumbent legislators feel they are unanswerable to their
constituents, invincible.
Hypocrisy 2 --
Massachusetts immediately needs two full-time U.S. Senators in
Washington: How did the Commonwealth survive with Kennedy's
extended absence from Washington over the past year, and without Senator
Kerry's presence throughout 2004 while he campaigned all over the
country for higher office? Why didn't Sen. Kennedy resign when he
became unable to perform his duties, allow for a smooth election
transition for his successor? Massachusetts obviously didn't need
two full-time U.S. Senators during both lengthy occasions. Their
constituents -- us -- have lived just fine without them, during their
extended personal leaves from their elected and sworn duties. We
can make it for a few more months, until we democratically elect our
next U.S. Senator.
Tomorrow the state House of
Representatives is expected to take up this newest change, vote on its
adoption. Watch this vote carefully. It will help us
separate the wheat of representative government from the chaff of more
political opportunism and typical power grabs on Beacon Hill. Will
your state representative vote for naked hypocrisy, or for the alleged
necessary fairness professed only five years ago?
Will they listen to you, or
will they bow to Beacon Hill party leadership, Washington congressional
power-brokers, and Obama administration arm-benders?
This vote will be a very
big and clear-cut test of honesty and integrity by each member of our
Legislature on Beacon Hill. We will hold our elected officials
accountable for their votes and fidelity.
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford |
State House News Service
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Kennedy succession plan casts Hill into confusion mode
By Jim O'Sullivan and Michael P. Norton
Ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy's request that Beacon Hill leaders rewrite
state law to allow a temporary gubernatorial appointee in case of his
death threw Democrats into cautious confusion Thursday, while
Republicans attacked the proposal as politically driven.
In a letter dated July 2 and delivered Wednesday, Kennedy, stricken with
terminal brain cancer and said to be gravely ill, told state leaders he
wants them to grant Gov. Deval Patrick authority to appoint a U.S.
senator for an interim of 145 to 160 days during the vacancy of a seat
and the run-up to a special election, with the appointee explicitly
pledging not to contend. The vote of the Democratic senator Patrick
would presumably appoint could be vital to the passage of federal health
care reform, which Kennedy has called the cause of his life.
Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray, and House Speaker Robert DeLeo
were all noncommittal Thursday, not elaborating on their vague
statements Wednesday, which voiced respect for Kennedy but no position
on his request.
Massachusetts Republicans said Thursday that Kennedy's plan smacked of
politics and would constitute a hypocritical about-face for many
legislators - who voted against a similar GOP proposal five years ago.
GOP legislators said they were concerned for Kennedy's health as the
senior senator battles brain cancer, but called the prospect of another
change in state law governing the replacement of a federal official a
matter of fairness.
Kennedy is not contemplating resignation and the lapse between the
letter's date and its delivery was due to family concerns, including
Kennedy's sister Eunice Kennedy Shriver's illness and August 11 death, a
Kennedy aide said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The aide said
Kennedy wanted to ensure his opinions on successorship were clearly
known and understood.
The source said Kennedy had consulted with family, friends and advisers,
including Sen. John Kerry. Kerry said Kennedy had told him "months ago"
that he thought the 2004 law should have ensured no delay in filling the
Senate post. That law was pushed through the Legislature, which at the
time was led by House Speaker Thomas Finneran and Senate President
Robert Travaglini, both Democrats. It was passed over Gov. Mitt Romney's
veto.
A House bill filed in January would fulfill Kennedy's request. New
Bedford Democratic Rep. Robert Koczera's proposal (H 656) is expected to
receive a hearing this fall.
"There is a bill in committee currently dealing with this," said
Election Laws Committee House chair Rep. Michael Moran. "In light of
this letter, certainly it makes us look at this issue again … under a
different light."
In the letter, Kennedy said he strongly supports the special election
law but believes it important for the state to have two voices in the
Senate during the five months between a vacancy and the special
election.
In 2004, in the face of rising Democratic optimism that Kerry would be
elected president and a rush to strip Romney of his Senate appointment
power, Democrats in both chambers voted against a GOP amendment that
essentially mirrored the interim appointment model Kennedy proposed.
The Democratic majority now risks appearing to back-track on a
high-stakes federal representation issue due to the political climate.
At the same time, Democrats are eager for a sweeping health care bill to
pass in Washington, and Kennedy is held in great esteem by Massachusetts
officials.
House Minority Leader Bradley Jones said he was "stunned at the
incredible hypocrisy that could be expected to unfold."
"Given that a great many of the leadership voted against the change in
2004, one would hope for some consistency," Jones said.
Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei agreed, saying, "It was brushed
aside, and the people who were for changing the law were very vocal, so
I just don't see how they do a 180 and oppose what they were very much
in favor of."
Tisei pointed out that Kennedy's predecessor in the Senate, Benjamin
Smith, was appointed by then-Gov. Foster Furcolo in a move that was
widely seen as enabling the Kennedys to retain the seat two years later,
when the family's youngest brother was old enough for the Senate.
Rep. Brad Hill, an Ipswich Republican, recalled that the House in 2004
rejected, along party lines, a Republican amendment calling for a
temporary gubernatorial appointee to keep any vacated Massachusetts seat
in the U.S. Senate occupied until a special election was held, and
wondered why Kennedy didn't support the plan at that time.
"Unfortunately, this reeks of politics, which is pretty sad," Hill told
the News Service.
Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) said he wasn't aware of a legislative
sponsor for Kennedy's plan, but added, "When the senior senator makes a
request it's taken very seriously." Tarr said he was concerned that
state election policies were unstable and vulnerable to the political
will of the majority party, the Democrats.
Kennedy's own state senator, Robert O'Leary, said he would "absolutely"
sponsor legislation granting Kennedy's wish.
"Given his role in health care, it would be tragic if he wasn't able to
have a vote in that and it took one vote to get it done," O'Leary said
in a telephone interview. O'Leary said he planned to call Murray on
Friday and discuss the proposal with her.
"If there's a need to sponsor, I'd be proud to do it," O'Leary said.
He brushed off concerns that legislative Democrats would appear
hypocritical due to their vote in 2004 to strip Romney, a Republican, of
appointment power.
"I think of this not as a turning back on that, but a small, little
adjustment, and I think it's a wise one considering the stakes involved
in Washington around health care," O'Leary said.
Moran told the News Service early Thursday afternoon that he did not
know about Kennedy's request. When informed about Kennedy's call to
allow the governor to appoint a temporary senator who agrees not to seek
the seat in a special election, the Brighton Democrat said, "It sounds
like an interesting idea."
Moran added that he reserved support for the idea, should it be
presented in the form of legislation, because he said he needed more
information and feedback from members of the committee and the House.
Two gubernatorial hopefuls said they opposed the measure.
"I don't agree that the governor should appoint," said Treasurer Timothy
Cahill, a political independent considering a gubernatorial run. "I
would respectfully disagree that we should change the law back. I
personally didn't agree that we should change it in the first place, but
now that we have I think it would be the wrong move and the wrong
message."
"It would be very partisan if they did it," added Cahill
Referring to the health care debate, Cahill said, "If this slows things
down on the federal level, I personally don't think that's the worst
thing that can happen."
"We live in a democracy, not a kingdom," said GOP candidate Christy
Mihos. "We have a law on the books. It should be followed."
Republican candidate Charles Baker's campaign did not provide a response
to questions about Baker's opinion.
Lawmakers are not due to return to formal sessions until next month. In
the interim, Republicans or opposed Democrats could block the bill,
should one emerge, with a single member's objection.
Kerry said in his statement, "It's testament to Ted Kennedy's remarkable
sense of duty and responsibility to Massachusetts that a time when he
could be entirely focused on taking care of himself, he's as focused as
ever on taking care of Massachusetts. Ted told me months ago that he
thought the 2004 law was right to empower the people to choose their
Senator, but flawed because he doesn't believe that under any
circumstances, now or ever, Massachusetts should have anything less than
full representation in the United States Senate. They call Ted the Lion
of the Senate for a reason: because he continues to work every single
day on health care and the biggest issues of our time and every day he
delivers. Every day he keeps faith with what he believes, and this
letter is a reflection of another core conviction for Ted."
In their joint statement, Murray and DeLeo said, "We have great respect
for the senator and what he continues to do for our Commonwealth and our
nation. It is our hope that he will continue to be a voice for the
people of Massachusetts as long as he is able.''
Patrick's read, "It's typical of Ted Kennedy to be thinking ahead and
about the people of Massachusetts, when the rest of us are thinking
about him. Diane and I continue to pray for the restoration of the
senator's health and the comfort of his family.''
The Boston Globe
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Kennedy, looking ahead, urges that Senate seat be filled quickly
Seeks law change for interim post
By Frank Phillips
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.
Although Kennedy, who is battling brain cancer, does not specifically
mention his illness or the health care debate raging in Washington, the
implication of his letter is clear: He is trying to make sure that the
leading cause in his life, better health coverage for all, advances in
the event of his death.
In his letter, which was obtained by the Globe, Kennedy said that he
backs the current succession law, enacted in 2004, which gives voters
the power to fill a US Senate vacancy. But he said the state and country
need two Massachusetts senators.
“I strongly support that law and the principle that the people should
elect their senator,’’ Kennedy wrote. “I also believe it is 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.’’
Under the 2004 law, if Kennedy were to die or step down, voters would
select his successor in a special election to be held within five months
of the vacancy. But the law makes no provisions for Massachusetts to be
represented in the Senate in the interim. In the meantime, President
Obama’s plan to overhaul the nation’s health care system, the fate of
which may hinge on one or two votes, could come before Congress.
“I am now writing to you about an issue that concerns me deeply, the
continuity of representation for Massachusetts, should a vacancy
occur,’’ Kennedy wrote.
To ensure that the special election is fair, the senator also urged that
the governor obtain an “explicit personal commitment’’ from his
appointee not to seek the office on a permanent basis.
Separately, a Kennedy family confidant, speaking on the condition of
anonymity because the letter was private, said the senator’s wife,
Victoria Reggie Kennedy, is not interested in being a temporary
appointee or running in a special election.
“Her focus is her husband and her family,’’ the confidant said. “To her,
there is only one Senator Kennedy.’’
DeLeo and Murray, in a joint statement to the Globe yesterday, did not
address the substance of Kennedy’s request, saying: “We have great
respect for the senator and what he continues to do for our Commonwealth
and our nation. It is our hope that he will continue to be a voice for
the people of Massachusetts as long as he is able.’’
Patrick said in a statement: “It’s typical of Ted Kennedy to be thinking
ahead and about the people of Massachusetts, when the rest of us are
thinking about him. Diane and I continue to pray for the restoration of
the senator’s health and the comfort of his family.’’
Kennedy advisers were adamant yesterday that the timing of the letter
did not reflect any imminent emergency in the health of the senator, who
has been battling brain cancer since May 2008. Rather, it was sent this
week after the Globe began making inquiries to key Beacon Hill officials
over murmurings that some politicians were pushing for a change in the
law.
Kennedy aides said the senator never liked the five-month vacancy
created by the 2004 law, but his dislike took on new urgency because
Senate Democrats could need every vote possible on health care
legislation.
The family confidant stressed that even with his deteriorating health,
Kennedy continues to speak with staff and Senate colleagues. If his vote
were needed, there exists every possibility he would fly to Washington
again to cast it, Kennedy allies said.
Still, Kennedy’s letter is a candid acknowledgment that his long Senate
career might be coming to an end, a historic development for both
Massachusetts and the nation. He is the last of three Kennedy brothers
whose careers helped define postwar Democratic politics.
“For almost 47 years, I have had the privilege of representing the
people of Massachusetts in the United States Senate,’’ Kennedy wrote in
his letter.
Serving in the Senate, he wrote, “has been - and still is - the greatest
honor of my public life.’’
Advisers, including Senator John F. Kerry, began discussions months ago
about pushing for a change in the state law.
Kennedy’s letter was drafted in early July, when he was writing several
other letters, including a private note to the pope that Obama
hand-delivered. The letter to state officials was kept secret, not sent
until this week.
Kerry said yesterday that Kennedy had been considering this issue since
the early summer.
“It is something he talked to me about some time ago,’’ he said in an
interview.
Kerry rejected any notion that the letter signaled an immediate end to
Kennedy’s nearly half-century in office, insisting that his colleague
has been active in shaping the health care legislation in recent weeks.
“I don’t think this signals anything,’’ Kerry said. “He has been fully
engaged. . . . If [Senate majority leader] Harry Reid required 60 votes
tomorrow, Ted Kennedy would be on a plane and be down in the Senate to
vote.’’
Kerry added that he speaks with the senator regularly and visited him
several weeks ago at Kennedy’s Hyannis Port home.
Kennedy’s request puts Massachusetts lawmakers in a delicate position.
On one hand, his personal appeal would probably have some sway.
But resistance on Beacon Hill to tinkering with the 2004 law is strong,
with Democratic lawmakers nervous about being accused of engineering a
self-serving change to help their party.
Massachusetts governors used to have the power to fill Senate vacancies,
as happens in many other states, until the Legislature made the change
five years ago.
Democratic lawmakers, then as now in the majority, did not want to give
Governor Mitt Romney the chance to fill Kerry’s seat with a Republican
if Kerry won the presidency.
Patrick, meanwhile, has dismissed past suggestions that the state change
the law back to give him the power to fill a Senate vacancy.
Those who would run for Kennedy’s seat could also pressure state
lawmakers to resist changing the law, out of concern that toying with
the special election could somehow damage their prospects.
In Washington, there are increasing concerns among Democrats and health
care advocates over Kennedy’s absence from Capitol Hill. His voice has
often been one of the loudest and most influential on health care.
The Democratic caucus’s 60-vote majority is already tenuous, with
several moderate Democrats having expressed skepticism about the health
care bill.
Kennedy’s having not attended the funeral of his sister, Eunice, last
week heightened concerns that he would be unable to return to the Senate
for a vote.
Susan Milligan of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
State House News Service
Friday, August 21, 2009
Members start push behind Kennedy succession plan
Amidst a new round of partisan sniping on Beacon Hill, poll results
released Friday showed majority support among Massachusetts voters for a
plan outlined by ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy to allow Gov. Deval Patrick
to appoint a temporary U.S. senator in the event of a vacancy in the
office.
Fifty-two percent of likely Bay State voters say they agree with
Kennedy's request to change state law and allow the governor to name an
interim senator until a special election is held to elect a permanent
successor, according to a Rasmussen poll. Forty percent oppose the
change, according to the telephone survey of 500 likely voters.
Along party lines, 72 percent of Democrats favor the plan; 64 percent of
Republicans and 51 percent of unaffiliated voters oppose the plan. A
2004 state law, passed to prevent then-Gov. Mitt Romney from possibly
naming a replacement to then-Democratic Party presidential nominee Sen.
John Kerry, requires that a special election be held within roughly five
months of a Senate seat becoming vacant.
According to the poll, 66 percent of voters support a special election;
27 percent support the governor having the power to directly appoint
someone to the seat. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5
percent.
Legislative leaders and Patrick have been cool to Kennedy's request, but
a pair of lawmakers, Sen. Robert O'Leary (D-Barnstable) and Rep. Robert
Koczera (D-New Bedford) are trying to generate support for it, with the
latter asking Patrick to consider calling lawmakers back to Beacon Hill
to act on the matter.
O'Leary said he hoped to apply a "blanket prohibition" against the
interim senator seeking to retain the office. "We're circulating a
letter among the Cape delegation and then we're going to circulate it
Monday among our Senate colleagues," O'Leary said.
Aides to Senate President Therese Murray, who has been publicly
noncommittal, "didn't have an opinion one way or the other" during
discussions with his office, O'Leary told the News Service.
O'Leary said he had spoken with Koczera, who is pushing legislation that
would allow for the appointment after candidates qualify for the ballot.
O'Leary, whose Cape Cod district includes Kennedy's Hyannis Port home,
said he preferred a ban on the interim senator seeking the office, and
said, if that effort proved constitutionally tricky, "That would have to
be worked out."
The Barnstable Democrat said, "I think the intent is to try and do
something and do it early in September."
O'Leary weighed in with an endorsement of former Gov. Michael Dukakis as
"a perfect choice. He'd be my nominee."
Koczera has also ramped up his lobbying on behalf of his bill, sending a
letter to Patrick Thursday and reaching out to legislative leaders to
highlight a bill he filed months ago, but which was thrust into the
spotlight Thursday by news that Kennedy wants a rewrite of the
succession law.
The appointee would personally commit to not seeking the seat in a
special election, under Kennedy's plan. Koczera's proposal (H 656) is
similar but seeks to protect against the appointee running for the seat
in the special election by allowing the temporary senator to be named
only after candidates have been qualified for the ballot.
In his letter to Patrick, Koczera said he believed his bill reflects
Kennedy's position. "I suggest you consider this matter and in
discussion with legislative leaders consider calling the Legislature
into session to act upon the matter," Koczera wrote.
In an interview, he acknowledged his plan might leave the seat vacant
for two months, but said that would be preferable to a five-month
vacancy and a necessary safeguard to prevent an appointee from getting a
leg up on competitors via incumbency. "My feeling was that five months
was a long time. If there's business before the Congress Massachusetts
should have a voice and a vote," Koczera said. "I didn't file it
expecting these circumstances to arise."
Koczera said his bill, filed in January, isn't scheduled for a hearing
until October 7 but added that he's willing to expedite its review.
President Barack Obama is scheduled to vacation on Martha's Vineyard
beginning Sunday. Kennedy aides have sought to quell speculation that
the president would visit with his ailing political ally.
Republican lawmakers on Thursday ripped Kennedy's plan, labeling it a
political power play and noting Democrats rejected a similar proposal
five years ago.
While the GOP alleged hypocrisy behind an effort to restore appointment
powers now that there is a Democrat in the Corner Office, Koczera said
it was Republicans who are being hypocritical, noting it was not long
ago that they were defending the gubernatorial appointment power held by
Romney and fighting the Democrat-controlled effort to force a special
election as the method of filling Senate vacancies.
"It's being politicized a lot, especially by the Republican Party,"
Koczera said. "At one time they were in favor of an interim. It's like
newfound religion. They choose to be opposed to any kind of an
appointment."
House Minority Leader Bradley Jones on Friday pounced on Koczera's
criticism.
Noting Koczera in 2004 voted against a Republican-sponsored interim
appointee amendment and took to the House floor to push for the
proposal's defeat, Jones reiterated his claim that Democrats were
contemplating politically-based public policy changes.
"A hypocrite right out of the gate - Bob Hypocrite Koczera," Jones said
in a News Service interview. Jones added, "I haven't said that I'm
against the idea of an interim appointment" and said he was open to a
change that applied only after the 2010 elections.
Jones reiterated his beef that Democrats appeared to be engineering
policy based on political circumstances rather than the state's best
interests, saying the plan wouldn't be under discussion if Kennedy
weren't ill or if Republican Kerry Healey had beaten Patrick in the 2006
gubernatorial election.
Jones said, "If we had not changed the law in 2004 at all, this
conversation wouldn't be happening right now."
He said Democrats on Beacon Hill were responsible for a potential
"crisis" should the Senate seat become vacant. The GOP-sponsored interim
appointee amendment failed in 2004, with 44 voting in favor and 104
against. The 44 votes in favor were split evenly among Democrats and
Republicans.
So far, Koczera said, he hasn't received much of a response to his
letter. He said a couple of lawmakers he talked to at the State House
Thursday were noncommittal. "The bill's been filed," he said. "It's
going to be heard and voted upon in some fashion."
Koczera said all timely filed bills are voted upon in committee and that
he hoped his bill would receive a favorable report. He said he had
received no assurances of a floor vote on his bill in the House. Koczera
added he is working with O'Leary to push for a hearing in September
rather than October.
"I'm definitely in favor of wanting to get early action," he said.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Kennedy should resign
By Jeff Jacoby
Running for reelection in 1982, Senator Ted Kennedy aired a series of
sentimental television ads in which longtime supporters spoke of him as
an empathetic human being who was no stranger to suffering and sorrow.
One of those supporters was 83-year-old Frank Manning, founder of the
Massachusetts Association of Older Americans. “He’s not a plaster saint,
he’s not without his faults,’’ Manning said in the ad. “But we wouldn’t
want a plaster saint.’’
I didn’t vote for Kennedy in 1982 or any other year, and I have
certainly never thought of him as a saint, plaster or otherwise.
Play-to-win politics, not piety, has been the essence of his long career
in the Senate. He has a gift for the poignant gesture; there is no
denying he is a deft hand at evoking the affection of his many admirers.
But beneath the tug at the heartstrings, there is always shrewd
political calculation.
Today Kennedy is gravely ill with brain cancer, but his political
instincts are as sharp as ever. Given his condition, the letter he sent
to Massachusetts political leaders last week could not help but generate
a fresh wave of sympathy. “I am now writing to you,’’ it reads, “about
an issue that concerns me deeply - the continuity of representation for
Massachusetts, should a vacancy occur.’’ As a human being, Kennedy is
surely grateful for that sympathy. As a canny political navigator, he
reckons it may provide the cover needed to change Massachusetts law to
benefit his party.
Kennedy wants the Legislature to upend the succession law it passed in
2004, when - at his urging - it stripped away the governor’s
longstanding power to temporarily fill a Senate vacancy. Back then, John
Kerry was a presidential candidate and Republican Mitt Romney was
governor; Kennedy lobbied state Democrats to change the law so that
Romney couldn’t name Kerry’s successor.
They followed his advice with gusto. When the final vote took place, the
Boston Globe reported, “hooting and hollering broke out on the usually
staid House floor,’’ and House Speaker Thomas Finneran acknowledged
candidly: “It’s a political deal. It’s very raw politics.’’
It still is. Now that Massachusetts has a Democratic governor, Kennedy
is lobbying to restore the gubernatorial power to name an interim
appointee. That would guarantee Democrats in Washington two reliable
Senate votes from Massachusetts, even if Kennedy isn’t there to cast one
of them.
Needless to say, Kennedy’s letter says nothing about raw politics. No,
it’s all lofty principle and good government. “It is 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,’’ he writes.
If Kennedy is sincere - if his chief concern is that Massachusetts not
be left for months without the services of a full-time senator - then he
should do the right thing right now: He should resign.
For well over a year, Massachusetts has not had the “two voices . . .
and two votes in the Senate’’ that Kennedy says its voters are entitled
to. Sickness has kept him away from Capitol Hill for most of the last 15
months. He has missed all but a handful of the 270 roll-calls taken in
the Senate so far this year. Through no fault of his own, he is unable
to carry out the job he was reelected to in 2006. As a matter of
integrity, he should bow out and allow his constituents to choose a
replacement.
“Democrats are keenly feeling the absence of Ted Kennedy,’’ reported The
Politico from Washington last week. “Senate Democratic insiders . . .
say there’s been little contact with the Massachusetts Democrat
recently.’’ Though his staff tries to keep up appearances, it is clear
that Kennedy is no longer an active participant in Senate business. Few
things are harder for those accustomed to power than letting it go. But
there is no honor in clinging to office till the bitter end.
Senator Kerry told ABC the other day that his colleague “doesn’t believe
that under any circumstances, now or ever, Massachusetts should have
anything less than full representation in the United States Senate.’’ It
has less than full representation - much less - right now. That is why,
for the sake of the state and Senate he loves, Edward Kennedy should
step down.
State House News Service
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Capitol Briefs
Rep: Barring temporary appointment
from senate seat unconstitutional
A Republican state lawmaker on Monday argued that a proposal to allow
the governor to temporarily fill a vacant U.S. Senate seat is
unconstitutional.
Ipswich Rep. Brad Hill, on NECN’s Broadside, said the proposal, filed by
Rep. Robert Koczera (D-New Bedford), could not legally preclude the
temporary appointee from running for an open seat. “I don’t think you
can tell somebody they can’t run for Senate even though they said they
won’t,” Hill said.
The proposal gained national exposure when Sen. Edward Kennedy, who is
sick with terminal brain cancer, urged state officials last week to
change the law to allow the governor to name a replacement to fill the
five month gap between a vacancy and special election. Kennedy said that
should the proposal go through, the governor should win a commitment
from his appointee not to run in the special election.
Koczera, seated next to Hill, said he believed his proposal, filed in
January, is constitutional and removes politics from the equation.
His plan would allow the temporary senator to be named only after
candidates have been qualified for the ballot.
It’s a method that he acknowledges could result in a seat going vacant
for two months, which he said is preferable to a five-month vacancy in
the period leading up to a special election.
Koczera cited cases around the country in which vacancies were filled
temporarily ahead of special elections. “The state has the right to
determine how they want to fill a vacancy,” he said.
Hill said his office has fielded “irate” calls from constituents and
predicted that lawmakers would “have some type of a debate on this.”
Koczera did not directly answer when guest host Chet Curtis asked for
his prediction on the proposal, instead reiterating the purpose of the
bill.
The White House on Monday took a pass on the issue, with a spokesman
saying it’s up to “folks in Massachusetts” to decide. Gov. Deval
Patrick, who has been vacationing away from Beacon Hill, has yet to take
a position on the issue.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Five months is too long to wait
By Robert Koczera
With the passing of Edward Kennedy, a special election will be conducted
to elect a US senator who will serve the remaining three years of his
term. This special election will not be held until January. This means
Massachusetts will have only half its representation in the Senate until
then. With the Senate scheduled to deliberate on health care this fall,
Massachusetts should have two votes not one.
In January, I filed legislation for an interim senator to serve during
the period in which a special election is conducted to fill a vacant
Massachusetts Senate seat. My legislation will not change the law
mandating a special election five months from now. However, it will
ensure that Massachusetts has its full complement of two votes during
the time it takes to elect a senator. Five months is too long to go
without representation.
My bill would not give an unfair advantage to any candidate. It proposes
that the governor can only appoint an interim senator after the deadline
has passed for candidates to file for the special election, and the
governor would be prohibited by law from appointing any of the
candidates in said special election. So the governor will not be in a
position to influence the special election. The people will choose their
senator from among the candidates in the special election.
Why appoint an interim senator pending the outcome of the special
election? Because a special election in Massachusetts will take five
months, and in an even-numbered year could take longer because the
special election in an even-numbered year, by law, would coincide with
the general election.
For 215 years, Senate vacancies in Massachusetts were filled by
gubernatorial appointment, which could be for a period as long as two
years. The law was changed five years ago, requiring a special election.
I support a special election, however, an interim appointment such as I
have suggested, will ensure that Massachusetts citizens will not lack
representation in the Senate on the important issues of the day. I
believe my legislation is in the public interest.
To be clear: I am not proposing to change the law calling for a special
election; there will be an election if my bill passes. Some critics have
called me hypocritical for sponsoring this legislation because I voted
against an amendment five years ago to appoint an interim senator. But
there are differences between what was on the table then and what I am
proposing now. That earlier amendment did not prohibit an interim
appointee from being a candidate in the special election. I believe this
to be an important difference.
The Massachusetts Legislature should enact this legislation in an
expeditious manner to ensure that we have two voices and two votes this
fall when the Senate takes up health care legislation. My bill for an
interim senator should have bipartisan support.
Then again, the special election law that passed five years ago should
have had bipartisan support. It did not. In memory of Senator Kennedy,
let us reach across the aisle.
Representative Robert Koczera is a Democrat from New Bedford.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Don’t change rules mid-game
By Bradley H. Jones Jr.
Love of sports and politics runs deep in Massachusetts. And if I said
that the rules of the game for the Boston Red Sox should be changed
after the first pitch or for the New England Patriots after the opening
kickoff, I would be run out of town on the nearest rail.
The same principle should apply with regard to filling our vacant seat
in the United States Senate: Do not change the rules in the middle of
the game. While the Commonwealth continues to mourn the loss of Senator
Edward Kennedy, a debate is swirling on Beacon Hill about altering the
law most recently changed in 2004. Five years ago, when it seemed that
Republican Governor Mitt Romney might get an appointment to fill Senator
John Kerry’s seat, the Democratic House and Senate hastily passed a law
stripping the governor of the appointment power. They did so,
ostensibly, in the name of democracy and letting the voters choose.
As a recent Globe editorial acknowledged, “Everyone already knows that
blatant politics compelled the Legislature’s Democratic majority to
create this mess in 2004.” The Legislature did so at the urging of
Senator Kennedy. We should not compound that mess by again changing the
rules for personal, philosophical, or partisan interest.
Five years ago, I led legislative Republicans in making the argument
that, by not providing the governor with an opportunity to appoint an
interim replacement, the people of Massachusetts would not effectively
be represented in the US Senate. We advanced that argument numerous
times and offered amendments that would allow for both interim
representation and a special election. Each instance fell on the deaf
ears of a Democratic majority intent on having its way without regard to
reason or the best interests of the Commonwealth.
Dozens of times throughout our nation’s history, US Senate seats have
become vacant due to illness, accident, or resignation. Yet those pleas
were ignored. Most recently in 2006 - with no vacancy looming and
Governor Romney on the way out the door - the Democratic majority again
rejected the very idea advanced just this month by Senator Kennedy of an
interim appointment pending the outcome of a special election.
Three years later, some Democrats want to flip-flop and change the law
again out of partisan interest, not principled belief. I continue to see
merit in allowing for an interim appointment to fill a vacancy until a
special election - but only when we do so without consideration of who
is in the corner office, the balance of power in Washington, or the
issue of the day in Congress.
Senator Kennedy’s death a few short days ago started a process under the
law embraced by the majority in 2004. That law requires the governor to
immediately schedule a special election not later than 160 nor less than
145 days from the date the seat became vacant. Any change to the law now
would be to change the rules in the middle of the game - and should be
something any self-respecting Massachusetts politician - or sports fan -
should oppose.
Representative Bradley H. Jones Jr., Republican of North Reading, is
the House minority leader.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, August 30, 2009
A seat fit for Dukakis
By Yvonne Abraham
And now, to the very difficult business of moving forward.
It’s looking like state lawmakers might do the right thing and grant one
of Senator Ted Kennedy’s final wishes, installing somebody to act in his
stead until voters choose a permanent replacement.
That somebody should be Mike Dukakis.
Do I hear a groan or two out there? It’s possible some of you might not
share my soft spot for the former governor. He’s too liberal for some,
too much of a scold for others. He’s obsessed with trains and trash.
Also, the tank and the helmet.
But you don’t have to adore him to see that he’s the guy for the job,
for a lot of good reasons.
Other people might sit in that storied US Senate seat for a couple of
months and start getting used to it, reconsidering promises not to seek
a full term in the winter special election. Not Dukakis. The former
governor and Democratic presidential nominee is 75, already a national
figure, and content. He’s not in the market for a new career. And even
if he were, he has too much integrity to go back on his word.
He’s also a passionate expert on the issue Kennedy held dearest. The
senator devoted his life to the task of providing decent health care for
everyone, and he died within sight of that goal. The point of the
placeholder senator would be to give voice to Kennedy’s wishes on
sweeping health care reform.
Dukakis, who had Kennedy’s support in his presidential campaign, joined
that battle long ago. In 1988, he signed a universal health care bill
that would have given comprehensive health insurance to everybody in
Massachusetts, reined in hospital costs, and protected people who were
unemployed or otherwise uninsurable. Then, faced with a cratering
economy, his Republican successor Bill Weld throttled it. (Another
Republican governor, Mitt Romney, signed a bill 16 years later that gave
Massachusetts almost universal coverage.)
If the federal health care legislation survives the gutting it’s getting
from the cynics, the loonies, and the legislators, it’s only fitting
that Dukakis should be the one to vote on it.
And not only because of what Dukakis knows, but because of who he is.
One of the most remarkable things about Kennedy was that, even though he
didn’t need to, he devoted his life to people who weren’t as lucky as he
was. Dukakis doesn’t have Kennedy’s means, or his giant platform, but he
is equally devoted to service. The idea of going into the private sector
after leaving politics was as likely for Dukakis as relocating to Mars,
or even New York. Since his last term as governor ended, he has devoted
himself to teaching, as well as his causes: improving public
transportation, safeguarding public spaces, reforming health care.
“What you see is what you get,’’ says Phil Johnston, the former Dukakis
staff member who ran the state Democratic Party for years. “There’s no
pretense. He just sits down and rolls up his sleeves and he goes to work
on whatever the problem is.’’
And he’s done it with a humility you can’t help but admire. The guy
still rides the T and loves it as much as he always did. He walks
through the Fens picking up trash. He paints over graffiti on the
mailboxes in his neighborhood (with permission from the postmaster, of
course).
A turn in the Senate would be a capstone for his career, and a tribute
he deserves.
It would be a tribute to Kennedy, too. Because, like the senator, the
man who would be taking his vote on health care reform would be one of
the last of an increasingly rare breed of politician in this state that
was once famous for it: someone who knows what he stands for, and makes
no bones about it.
The Boston Herald
Monday, August 31, 2009
A Boston Herald editorial
Bad politics, policy
Perhaps if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had expressed this much
concern for the citizens of Massachusetts when his friend Ted Kennedy
was alive we could take his solicitations more seriously now that
Kennedy has passed away.
But it is impossible to envision Reid or his spokesman uttering these
words even a few weeks ago, or upon learning of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s
cancer diagnosis last year:
“With so many important matters to be decided, the people of the
commonwealth need two senators to represent Massachusetts . . . ”
The truth, of course, is that there were important matters to be decided
- the federal stimulus bill; the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia
Sotomayor; an update to laws on warrantless wiretapping of suspected
terrorists - and Kennedy was, sadly, not there to help decide them. Nor
was Reid wringing his hands over it then.
But with Kennedy’s death Reid and just about every other Democrat hoping
to protect the party’s grip on power at the Capitol feel freed to
instruct Massachusetts lawmakers on what to do. It is a shameful,
cynical bit of meddling, and Massachusetts lawmakers ought not seek
political refuge in it.
Lawmakers could, respectfully, punt on this succession issue and still
manage to retain a measure of credibility - which they would lose with a
hypocritical reversal of their 2004 vote to require a special election,
and rejection of an interim appointment. Doing so would hardly bring the
republic to her knees.
In fact, it could save Massachusetts from the spectacularly mucked-up
appointment scenarios that played out in Illinois and New York over the
last year.
Supporters believe that a pledge from the chosen “temp” not to run in
the special election is a selling point for this procedural change. But
once the appointment is made that individual is answerable to no one.
The prospect of a short-timer immunized from electoral repercussions is,
frankly, horrifying.
Democrats brood that leaving Massachusetts a senator down for a few
months will damage the Bay State’s interests. They neglect to consider
that the wrong appointment could do irreparable damage, too.
The Boston Herald
Monday, August 31, 2009
Vicki won’t take it, but Dems push to appoint Ted successor
By Hillary Chabot
The governor today set Jan. 19 as the date of the special election to
fill the vacant seat of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. The primary will be Dec.
8.
Victoria Reggie Kennedy, the late senator’s brave widow, told Gov. Deval
Patrick she didn’t want to temporarily serve in her husband’s seat.
Patrick said Vicki told him personally over the weekend that she did not
want the spot, should lawmakers vote to create the temporary
appointment.
Patrick declined to discuss other candidates to the interim seat.
“Massachusetts needs two voices in the United States Senate,” said
Patrick in announcing the dates this afternoon. He added he’s not a
candidate for the seat, saying he “has a job” already.
The announcement does not stop the governor from appointing a temporary
replacement for Kennedy, if the Legislature approves such a move.
Earlier today, Democratic lawmakers hit the gas on a push to appoint a
temporary successor to Kennedy, moving up a public hearing on the
legislation to Sept. 9 at 1 p.m.
The news comes as House Speaker Robert DeLeo (D-Winthrop) gave further
indication this weekend that he would support Kennedy’s dying wish to
appoint a temporary successor, according to a source.
“The people of Massachusetts lost a great advocate for our interests
with the passing of Sen. Kennedy,” said Rep. Michael Moran (D-Boston),
who co-chairs the legislative election committee. “His death has caused
the committee to accelerate the time line on this piece of legislation.”
The hearing will be in the Gardner Auditorium in the State House, and
the public is invited to weigh in. Lawmakers changed the law in 2004 -
at Kennedy’s request - from gubernatorial appointment to a special
election held within 165 days. It was meant as a hedge against then-Gov.
Mitt Romney naming a Republican to fill a possible vacancy in the event
Sen. John Kerry won the presidential election.
Before he died last week, Kennedy sent a letter to DeLeo, Senate
President Therese Murray, and Patrick asking them to allow Patrick to
appoint an interim senator.
Murray is in Russia this week, but has expressed an openness to the
legislation.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Jan. 19 set for Senate election
Potential rivals await word from Joseph Kennedy
By Frank Phillips and Matt Viser
Governor Deval Patrick yesterday set Jan. 19 for the state’s first-ever
special election to fill a US Senate seat, as potential successors to
Edward M. Kennedy begin to prepare campaigns and wait anxiously for word
on whether Joseph P. Kennedy II or another member of the family jumps
into the race.
Under Patrick’s calendar, candidates will have to file nomination papers
by late October and the party primaries would be held on Dec. 8. But the
five-month race, which will cost taxpayers an estimated $5.4 million, is
expected to take shape almost immediately as contenders begin building
their campaigns, raising money, and positioning themselves in the field.
The governor’s announcement comes as the political world awaits a signal
from Joe Kennedy, a former member of the US House, on whether he will
seek his uncle’s seat. With three members of Congress and the state’s
attorney general seriously considering running, Kennedy’s decision is
expected to significantly shape the Democratic primary race.
Kennedy is being urged to run by some relatives who would like to keep
the seat in the family, and he could announce his intentions as soon as
this week, according to people close to the family. Edward Kennedy’s
wife, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, is also facing calls to enter the race,
though a family confidant told the Globe before her husband’s death that
she was not interested.
A Kennedy’s entry into the campaign would prompt two prospective
candidates, US Representatives Edward J. Markey and Michael Capuano, to
back off, according to those advising them. Two other potential
contenders, Attorney General Martha Coakley and US Representative
Stephen F. Lynch, would probably remain in the race, according to their
advisers.
A state legislative committee, meanwhile, will hold a hearing next week
on a bill to allow Patrick to appoint an interim senator while the
special election is held, a signal that Beacon Hill is moving to
accommodate Edward Kennedy’s request that Massachusetts maintain two
voices in the Senate while voters select his successor.
The House and Senate chairmen of the Joint Committee on Election Laws
announced they had moved the hearing date from early October to Sept. 9.
The bill could come to the floor of both the House and Senate within
days after the hearing.
With major national issues at stake - chief among them a proposed
overhaul of the nation’s health care system - the succession race and
the issue of a temporary appointment have drawn national attention.
C-Span covered Patrick’s press conference yesterday live. The governor
used his appearance to continue to push for the power to make an interim
appointment.
“My job right now is to think of the best interests of the
commonwealth,’’ he said. “And I think having a full complement - two
voices in the United States Senate - is in the best interests of the
commonwealth. We have a stake in this health care debate in the Congress
right now, we have a stake in the climate change bill, and in
education.’’
Washington Democrats have pressured Beacon Hill leaders to fill the
seat, to ensure that they maintain their 60-vote majority in the Senate.
The proposal, which Kennedy made a week before he died, had initially
faced some resistance on Beacon Hill. But the legislation has gained
support in recent days.
Republicans charge that the Democrats are just trying to make a power
grab. In 2004, the Democrat-controlled Legislature took the power to
fill a vacant Senate away from then-governor Mitt Romney because
lawmakers did not want him to have the chance, in the event Senator John
F. Kerry won the presidency, to fill his seat with a Republican. That
new law created the special election process.
State Representative George N. Peterson Jr., who supported giving the
governor interim appointment powers in the debate over the law in 2004,
said he will vote “present’’ because he said Democrats are acting out of
purely political motives.
“It’s too bad we are changing laws based on politics and not about the
best interests of Massachusetts,’’ said Peterson, the House assistant
minority leader.
Patrick said he felt legislators are “moving as fast as they can’’ to
consider the change in law. “I don’t think by any means it is a
certainty that it will happen. I think that they are trying to find a
path from here to there to honor, as I say, the very reasonable request
of Senator Kennedy.’’
But the governor acknowledged he is hardly thrilled he has been put in
this position.
“You want me to be honest? I don’t need this headache,’’ the governor
said. “By that I mean the purely political business of saying yes to
someone and no to a lot of other people . . . But this seems to me to be
a nice, and rather elegant, compromise.’’
The Chicago Tribune
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
How power plays backfire
A Chicago Tribune editorial
Politicians learned long ago that one of the privileges of power is
rigging the system to help your party and hurt the other. What they
never seem to learn is how easily that trick can backfire. The shackles
you fashion for your opponents can wind up on your own wrists.
Republicans learned that lesson back in the 1980s. After Franklin D.
Roosevelt won four consecutive terms in the White House, they had
decided to make sure that could never happen again by pushing through a
constitutional amendment saying that no one could be elected to the
office more than twice. Revenge was sweet - until Ronald Reagan came
along and some conservatives yearned for the chance to keep him in
office beyond eight years.
Democrats, of course, rejected any notion of repealing the 22nd
Amendment. They in turn lived to regret their approach - when Bill
Clinton, the first Democrat since FDR to win a second term, was
foreclosed from a third.
Illinois lawmakers had the chance to strip Rod Blagojevich of the power
to appoint a replacement for Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate and give
that power to voters. But they stalled and we all got burned by
Blagojevich’s appointment of Roland Burris.
Massachusetts Democrats are suffering their own self-inflicted wound. In
2004, when Sen. John Kerry was running for president, they wanted to
block Republican Gov. Mitt Romney from choosing a successor if Kerry
won. With control of the Legislature, they passed a law taking away the
governor’s appointment power and requiring special elections to fill
vacancies. It was political gamesmanship, though it also had the virtue
of empowering the people to choose their own senator.
But today, many of those lawmakers are not content for virtue to be its
own reward. The death of Sen. Edward Kennedy opens up a vacancy, and
this time the governor is Deval Patrick, a Democrat. So Patrick and some
Democratic legislators want to restore his power to appoint a
replacement to serve until the special election. Kennedy himself
endorsed the appointment idea in his final weeks.
The rationale of supporters is that they don’t want the state to be
without two senators for five months. But that prospect didn’t bother
them back in 2004.
Massachusetts Republican Party Chairwoman Jennifer Nassour had it right
when she said, “If legislators go through with this, they are gigantic
hypocrites.” Even some of her usual foes seem to agree. Democratic state
Sen. Brian Joyce, who supported the 2004 change, says authorizing an
appointment by the governor “would be wholly undemocratic.” The change
might be politically unwise as well because it would taint Democrats
running in the special election.
Come January, Massachusetts Democrats will have the chance to persuade
voters to elect one of their own to Kennedy’s seat. In the meantime,
they may be reminded of what H.L. Mencken observed: “Injustice is
relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.”
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Democrats hot to keep seat warm
By Hillary Chabot
Democrats from Beacon Hill to Capitol Hill ramped up pressure on state
lawmakers yesterday to allow Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint a temporary
U.S. senator as legislators remained divided on the issue.
Patrick again praised the idea of a short-term appointment - requested
by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy himself - as an “elegant compromise,”
while U.S. Rep. William Delahunt warned the Bay State would suffer
without the seat.
“The load would be overwhelming and (the delegation’s) ability to
deliver at the high quality they do will be impacted,” Delahunt said.
“This is not just about health care, this is about the Massachusetts
economy and our ability to compete with other states.”
A temporary appointment would keep the U.S. Senate seat warm until the
Jan. 19 special election decides Kennedy’s successor.
Yesterday, state lawmakers fast-tracked a hearing on legislation backing
a quick replacement to Sept. 9, but several pols expressed deep
reservations on the bill, which reverses a vote in 2004 blocking
gubernatorial appointments.
Patrick said he spoke with House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate
President Therese Murray, and while the vote is by no means certain,
“they are trying to find a path from here to there to honor, as I said,
the very reasonable request of Senator Kennedy.”
The 2004 change - instigated by Kennedy - was to prevent former Gov.
Mitt Romney, a Republican, from appointing a Republican to the Senate
should U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry have won that year’s presidential
election.
“It just seems like it’s not the right thing to do at this time,” said
state Rep. John Binienda (D-Worcester).
Republicans charge the move is a political power play to ensure a
supportive vote in the national health-care reform debate.
The biggest roadblock for local lawmakers is preventing the temporary
appointment from running in the election. Patrick, as well as other
officials, said banning the appointee in legislation is
unconstitutional.
Patrick said yesterday the appointee would make a personal pledge not to
run, but a promise isn’t good enough for many lawmakers.
“I just don’t think we should hand it off to someone and give them a leg
up on the race,” said state Rep. Michael Moran (D-Boston), who is a
co-chairman of the Joint Committee on Election Laws.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Sen. John Kerry backs interim Senator push
By Hillary Chabot
U.S. Sen. John Kerry will join union leaders in the push to let Gov.
Deval Patrick appoint an interim U.S. senator at a Beacon Hill hearing
next week.
Representatives from the Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts and
the greater Boston Labor Council also sent letters of support yesterday.
“There has been a significant uptick of activity from people on the pro
side of this,” said Rep. Michael Moran (D-Boston), who co-chairs the
election law committee.
Lawmakers have been divided about the controversial measure, requested
by the late U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, because the Legislature just
took appointment power away from then-Gov. Mitt Romney in 2004. Kennedy
requested that change then in case Kerry was elected president.
Outraged Republicans have called the move hypocrisy, designed to help
push through health-care reform.
Meanwhile, GOP gubernatorial candidate Charles Baker said the rush to
change the state’s Senate succession law shows Democrats’ distorted
priorities. The hearing is set for Wednesday at 1 p.m. in the Gardner
Auditorium.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The Boston Herald
Friday, September 4, 2009
A Boston Herald editorial
Reid sinks his own case
You just gotta love Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for an astonishing
burst of candor the other day in an interview with the Reno Gazette
Journal. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy had just barely been laid to rest when
the Nevada Democrat blurted out this about the impact of Kennedy’s death
on pending health-care legislation:
“I think it’s going to help us. He hasn’t been around for some time.
We’re going to have a new chairman of that committee. It’ll be, I don’t
know for sure, but I think Sen. [Chris] Dodd. He has a right to take it.
Either him or U.S. Sen. [Tom] Harkin, whichever one wants it can have
it.”
Those in the Legislature considering putting their reputations on the
line to accommodate Reid’s “urgent” plea for a temporary appointee might
just want to think this through again.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
A Boston Globe editorial
Representation in US Senate or vanity on Beacon Hill?
Today's hearing before the Joint Committee on Elections marks a test for
Massachusetts’ legislative leaders. With the death of Senator Edward M.
Kennedy, Massachusetts risks being without a senator for five months.
The Legislature should allow an interim appointment to make sure that
the state doesn’t go without representation. It is as basic a task as
any handled on Beacon Hill.
But the task is complicated because the Democratic supermajority in both
houses used its veto-proof power five years ago to take away the right
of the then-Republican governor to make an interim appointment. And the
new leaders of those same majorities worry that changing course would
alert the world to the crass, partisan nature of that earlier exercise
of power. So the decision on whether to allow an interim appointment has
become tangled up in legislative vanity.
It’s now about more than leaving the state’s interests unprotected. It’s
about whether the supermajorities are getting in the way of effective
government.
Dominant one-party control of the Massachusetts Legislature has been
such a fact of life that the rest of the political landscape has altered
to accommodate it. Voters have chosen political outsiders as governor to
serve as counterweights to excessive legislative control. But the House
and Senate leaders have often run roughshod over those governors. At
times, it seemed as if the greatest check on the House speaker and
Senate president were not the governor but the press and prosecutors.
One legislative leader after another has fallen to scandal.
Still, voters regularly re-elect their senators and House members. Many
incumbents benefit from having huge campaign-finance war chests, but
it’s safe to conclude that Massachusetts voters tend to prefer the
Democratic Party. And that party’s legislative majorities have, at
times, been capable of working with governors on important achievements,
from the education reforms of the ’90s to the universal health bill of
2006 to recent clean-energy initiatives.
But at some other points, the legislative leadership has acted drunk
with power, making reasonable people yearn for balance and debate. The
2004 decision to strip the governor of the right to choose an interim
senator was one such abuse. Now, depriving Massachusetts of
representation in the US Senate to cover up for a past mistake would be
another act of surpassing arrogance. The coming vote is a test, indeed -
a test of the Legislature’s ability to look beyond its nose and do
what’s clearly right for the Commonwealth.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Lawmakers, what’s best for state?
By Scot Lehigh
Today, our languorous Legislature officially starts considering whether
this state should have an interim US senator during the special election
for Ted Kennedy’s successor.
As they mull the matter, lawmakers should be guided by a simple
principle: What’s best for Massachusetts citizens?
So far this issue has gotten mired in accusations of hypocrisy. And
assertions that Senator Kennedy should have resigned if he truly cared
about the state having two active senators. And by Machiavellian worries
about whether this Senate candidate or that might be helped or hurt by
having an interim appointee - one who pledged not to run in the special
election, mind you - hold the seat on a temporary basis.
But a clarity-catalyzing focus on the best interest of citizens points
to the right answer. Given the critical issues on the national agenda
and the vital constituent work Kennedy’s first-rate staff has long done,
an interim appointment is the way to go.
By now, everyone knows the partisan past that’s prologue here. Beacon
Hill Democrats, urged on by none other than Kennedy himself, changed the
law in 2004 to establish a special election. It was a power grab,
motivated by their desire not to let Republican Mitt Romney appoint
someone for the last two years of John Kerry’s Senate term if Kerry won
the presidency.
Democratic lawmakers changed the process by establishing a special
election to fill a vacant Senate seat. They also voted down a GOP
amendment to allow for a interim appointment while that election took
place. In 2006, Democrats rejected further Republican attempts to
provide for an interim appointment.
Fast forward to the present. Kennedy, in a letter sent shortly before
his death, urged that the governor be allowed to appoint an interim
senator for the approximately five months a special election takes.
Republicans have greeted that proposed change with howls about
hypocrisy. And certainly if one is a Democratic legislator who opposed
the idea of an interim appointment in 2004 or 2006 but supports it now,
the Republicans make a good point.
Still, hypocrisy can be a double-edged sword. If one favored the idea of
an interim appointment back then, as the Republicans did, it’s also
hypocritical to oppose such an appointment now.
And as for other arguments?
Well, some opponents charge this proposal is simply an underhanded
Democratic attempt to gain advantage in the health care debate. But if
one’s guiding principle is what’s good for Massachusetts citizens, that
argument falls apart. After all, every state is entitled to two US
senators. Thus all we’re talking about is maintaining this state’s
Senate presence during the special.
Nor, for that matter, would an interim appointment change the Senate
math from what it would be if Kennedy hadn’t fallen ill and died.
Although still other critics claim it would be a disservice to voters to
allow an unelected appointee a voice on something as important as health
care reform, that makes scant sense. After all, appointing someone who
favored near universal health care would reflect the view that voters
endorsed when they last re-elected Ted Kennedy, long a champion of that
very cause.
All that said, House minority leader Brad Jones does raise a good point
when he wonders how anyone can have any confidence that Democrats won’t
change the law yet again if a Republican wins the corner office and
another Senate vacancy looms. There are no guarantees, of course, but I
suspect that even the Legislature would blanch at a further flip-flop
that was that blatantly cynical.
As for how to ensure that an interim appointee keeps a commitment not to
seek the seat on a permanent basis, the view here is that citizens
themselves would offer the best safeguard, by refusing to vote for
someone who had broken a promise so recently made.
No solution is perfect, obviously. But if legislators focus on doing
right by the state’s citizens, the correct course here will be clear.
Massachusetts needs an interim senator while we go about electing
someone to fill Ted Kennedy’s oversized shoes.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Kerry: Kennedy erred in 04 succession debate
By Hillary Chabot
U.S. Sen. John Kerry said the late U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy made a
mistake in 2004 when he pushed legislators to strip former Gov. Mitt
Romney of his power to appoint a successor.
Kerry made the surprising disclosure during an impassioned and emotional
testimony supporting a controversial push to allow Gov. Deval Patrick to
appoint a temporary U.S. Senator today.
“By writing the letter he wrote and putting himself on the line I think
he acknowledged he made a mistake,” Kerry said, adding that if Kennedy
asked for the change in the law, he would still support the push if
there was a Republican governor.
“It’s not about the party, it’s not about the labels, it’s about
(Massachusetts’) best interest,” Kerry added.
Kennedy wrote a letter to Patrick and legislative leaders one week
before he died asking them to change the current legislation - the same
legislation he engineered in 2004 to prevent Romney from appointing a
replacement for Kerry should Kerry win the presidential election.
Republican state lawmakers, who have blasted the bill as a power grab
meant to ensure support for President Barack Obama’s health reform,
sharply questioned Kerry about the politics behind the changes.
“We take votes in a day just like that to give and take away power and
it taints the process,” said state Sen. Scott Brown (R-Weymouth).
Kerry made an appeal to shake off the cries of political convenience
when House Minority leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading) asked how could
lawmakers be sure the appointee wouldn’t decide to run - referencing
former congressman Marty Meehan, who took an oath to limit his service
in Congress and later broke that vow.
“It’s hard for me to imagine someone making that commitment and walking
away - you wouldn’t survive,” said Kerry.
Lt. Gov. Tim Murray also testified in support of the legislation on
behalf of Patrick.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Kerry joins the call for interim senator
By Stephanie Ebbert
Senator John F. Kerry joined dozens of residents, public officials, and
labor representatives yesterday in urging state lawmakers to give
Governor Deval Patrick the power to appoint an interim senator to fill
Edward M. Kennedy’s seat for five months.
“This is no time for the people of Massachusetts to not be represented
fully in Washington,’’ Kerry told the Legislature’s Joint Committee on
Election Laws. “We need to be in the strongest position possible. Big
decisions are being made now, not in five months. And important votes
are coming now, not in five months.
“It comes down to a simple question: At this historic moment, do you
believe that Massachusetts should have two votes in the United States
Senate or just one?’’
Kerry’s testimony highlighted a packed hearing that lasted more than
five hours in a State House auditorium, where lawmakers weighed the
value of having full representation in the Senate - at a time of
big-ticket policy proposals, chiefly President Obama’s controversial
health care plan - against the political consequences of almost
certainly helping the Democratic majority on Capitol Hill tighten its
grip on power.
Before his death last month, Kennedy wrote to Patrick and legislative
leaders, urging them to change the law, saying it was vital for the
state to have “two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two
votes in the Senate.’’ Supporters of the change yesterday evoked
Kennedy’s plea, with one person at a rally before the hearing holding a
sign that read, “Honor His Last Request.’’
“At this moment in time, it is absolutely essential that Massachusetts
not go underrepresented,’’ said US Representative William D. Delahunt,
who testified beside Kerry. “All hands on deck.’’
The bill could come to the floor of both the House and Senate within
days, though its passage is hardly assured. House Speaker Robert DeLeo
and Senate President Therese Murray have been conspicuously passive on
the issue.
State Senator Jack Hart, a South Boston Democrat, said his constituents
have been calling and are overwhelmingly skeptical about “political
chicanery, the sense of a sleight of hand.’’
“All of us on the panel have some thinking to do about . . . the
benefits and what’s best for the state versus the fact that many people
in Massachusetts are a little bit tired of what they see from this
Legislature, which is not held in the highest regards,’’ he said.
Republican legislators, vastly outnumbered on the committee, bristled at
the plan to return to the governor the appointment power that the
Legislature took away just five years ago, calling it a bald power grab.
Back then, Republican Mitt Romney was governor, and Democratic lawmakers
worried that he would appoint a member of his party to fill Kerry’s seat
if Kerry were to win the presidency.
“If Kerry Healey were governor today, would you be here advocating as
strong as you are now?’’ asked state Representative Paul Frost, an
Auburn Republican, referring to the Republican candidate for governor in
2006 and spurring applause from the audience in Gardner Auditorium.
“If Ted Kennedy wrote the letter he wrote, I don’t care who was
governor, I’d be here advocating,’’ Kerry responded, drawing a round of
hearty applause from the crowd.
Patrick has set Jan. 19 as the date for a special election. But he
agreed with the urgency to appoint someone to represent the state’s
interests in the interim - someone, he insists, with no intention of
seeking the seat on a permanent basis.
“If given this authority, I will appoint someone who will make a
personal commitment to me not to be a candidate in the upcoming special
election,’’ Patrick, who is recovering from hip surgery, wrote to
lawmakers.
The entire Massachusetts congressional delegation also wrote to
lawmakers yesterday, asking that the law be changed. Not acting, they
wrote, would mean “putting the residents of the Commonwealth at a
disadvantage compared to other states.’’
In his 23-minute testimony, Kerry spoke of the importance of every vote
in Washington, pointing to historic one-vote margins that ended the
filibuster on the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and kept President Andrew
Johnson in office in 1868. He also noted that last February Kennedy
defied doctors’ orders and flew to Washington for an important
procedural vote on Obama’s stimulus package, which passed 61 to 36, just
one vote more than needed to advance the bill.
“This is not just theoretical,’’ Kerry said. “The history of America
has, on more than one occasion, turned as a result of one or two or
three votes in the Senate.’’
That led Republicans to question Kerry’s own voting record in the
Senate, particularly his many missed votes when he was running for
president in 2004. Kerry responded that every senator who runs for
president - including Republicans John McCain, Orrin G. Hatch, and Bob
Dole - missed votes during their own campaigns.
State Senator Scott Brown, a Wrentham Republican who is considering a
run for Kennedy’s seat, also pressed Kerry on Kennedy using his
influence to change the law in 2004.
“And by writing the letter that he wrote and putting himself on the
line, I think he acknowledged that that was a mistake,’’ Kerry
responded.
Kerry said he himself had deliberately not weighed in on the change in
2004, saying it would have been “entirely inappropriate for me as a
candidate.’’
After another pointed exchange with the House minority leader, Bradley
H. Jones Jr., Kerry asked lawmakers to think about serving the state’s
needs first, regardless of political allegiances.
“Can I say to you all, let’s try to strip the politics away,’’ Kerry
said. “Let’s think about this on a human level.’’
Some legislators pointed to Kennedy’s constituent services and their
concerns that residents would face delays in getting help on federal
issues such as immigration and public housing.
“Some of us have very urgent situations,’’ said Crystal Evans, a
28-year-old Somerville resident who uses a wheelchair because of
mitochondrial disease, a progressive disorder.
Evans said she had been working with Kennedy’s office to try to get
Section 8 housing more quickly, because the apartment where she lives
has an electrical problem that causes her wheelchair to malfunction. She
said she may not be around to see Kennedy’s successor elected.
“I need someone to advocate for me,’’ she said through tears. “The
harder I work trying to advocate for myself, the sicker I am getting.’’
The Boston Herald
Monday, September 14, 2009
Kerry making calls to push Kennedy bill on Beacon Hill
By Hillary Chabot
U.S. Sen. John Kerry is making personal calls to on-the-fence lawmakers
today asking them to support an interim U.S. Senator as national
Democrats ramp up pressure for the measure.
State Rep. Martin Walsh (D-Dorchester) spoke to Kerry on his cell phone
this morning.
“He made some good points. He talked about how constituent services
would be hurt,” Walsh said. “I’m still uncommitted.”
Many state legislators are leery of the bill, which would allow Gov.
Deval Patrick to appoint a temporary senator, because they voted to
strip the governor of appointing powers in 2004 to prevent Gov. Mitt
Romney from appointing a Republican. A Senate seat could have become
vacant if Kerry won the presidential election.
Republicans have criticized the legislation as a power grab.
Supporters of the plan argue that constituent services will suffer
because the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s office would be shut down as
of Oct. 26 without an interim replacement. Local pols suspect the real
pressure is to find support for President Obama’s controversial health
care reform.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo (D-Winthrop) - who several sources said
supports the measure - polled members throughout the weekend.
The vote - which could happen as soon as Thursday - is close, especially
in the Senate.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Lawmakers divided on filling seat
Interim senator appointment debated
By Matt Viser
House and Senate lawmakers are deeply divided over whether to give
Governor Deval Patrick the authority to appoint an interim US senator to
Edward M. Kennedy’s seat, even as top Democrats ramp up their lobbying
for a measure that could come up for a vote as early as Thursday.
David Axelrod, a top adviser to President Obama, called Senate President
Therese Murray last week, according to a person with knowledge of the
call, indicating a high level of interest from the White House, which
wants to ensure it has the votes in Congress to pass a major health care
bill.
Senator John F. Kerry has volunteered to come and knock on doors at the
State House, to persuade reluctant lawmakers. Kennedy’s wife, Victoria
Reggie Kennedy, has also called Murray to advocate for the change.
After largely avoiding the issue, Attorney General Martha Coakley, the
only major Democrat so far to formally announce a campaign for the Jan.
19 special election to fill Kennedy’s seat permanently, has also come
out in favor of an interim appointment, a spokeswoman for her campaign
said yesterday.
Patrick and members of the congressional delegation also continue making
personal phone calls to legislators.
But with the level of support in the House and Senate uncertain, the
fate of the legislation may well depend on how hard Murray and House
Speaker Robert A. DeLeo advocate for it. Both have been meeting behind
closed doors, but have remained publicly noncommittal.
“They can pressure all they want, but until DeLeo and Therese Murray are
decided on what they want, it’s basically moot,’’ state Representative
John Binienda, a Worcester Democrat who opposes the change, said of
proponents of the change. “Let’s face it: If they decide either way,
that’s the way that it will be pushed. If they decide they want it to
pass, the bill will not be put forth into either chamber until they have
the votes.’’
In Murray’s case, Coakley’s support could play a key role. Yesterday,
the Senate president was named an honorary chairwoman of Coakley’s
finance committee, meaning the two will work closely together over the
next several months.
Rank-and-file lawmakers have been told by leadership that the tentative
plan was to vote on the legislation Thursday.
“We’d like to see action sooner rather than later, in the next couple of
days,’’ said state Senator Thomas P. Kennedy, a Brockton Democrat and
cochairman of the Joint Committee on Election Laws, who supports
changing the law.
Meanwhile, Republicans are vowing to use parliamentary maneuvers to
stall the legislation for several weeks, setting up a bruising political
battle that would make it essential for top lawmakers to have votes
secured ahead of time.
“If they want to do it, they’ll find a way to do it, and they’ll squash
us,’’ said Senate minority leader Richard Tisei, a Wakefield Republican.
“But still, we could hold it up for a good amount of time, not for
months, but for weeks.’’
“We would do it, absolutely,’’ he added. “It’s unfair to change the
rules of the game when the process is already under way.’’
DeLeo called his leadership team Friday afternoon and asked them to
begin polling legislators to see if he had the votes.
Polling showed that the votes were not there, House members say, but
there was a large swath of undecided lawmakers.
“I continue to listen very carefully,’’ said state Representative Will
Brownsberger, a Democrat from Belmont who is undecided. “On the one
hand, I care deeply about the president’s agenda. On the other hand,
there’s a strong progressive argument that the right way to choose a
senator is through an election.’’
Murray has not been formally polling members, but a Democratic caucus
last week and discussions with state senators indicate that the chamber
is deadlocked on the issue.
“When this first came up, people were hesitant,’’ said state Senator
Robert O’Leary, who is a chief sponsor of the legislation. “My sense is
that’s changed. People are more aware of the significance of this.’’
Proponents say the Legislature should move swiftly to change the law
because it could affect President Obama’s national health care plan,
which is expected to be voted on later this year and to be decided by
paper-thin margins. Senate majority leader Harry Reid, who has also made
calls to Massachusetts politicians to push for the change, has said he
hopes a health care bill will be voted on by Thanksgiving.
The Democrat-led Legislature changed the law five years ago, when Mitt
Romney was governor and lawmakers worried that he would appoint a
Republican to fill Kerry’s seat if Kerry won the presidency.
At the time, lawmakers rejected an amendment that would have allowed for
an interim appointment.
Before his death last month, Kennedy wrote to Patrick, Murray, and DeLeo
to urge them to change the law, saying the state deserved to have full
representation. If the law is changed, Kennedy said, the governor should
seek a personal commitment from the interim appointee that he not run in
the special election.
The Legislature’s Joint Committee on Election Laws last week held a
hearing on the issue. Some lawmakers worry they will look hypocritical,
because of their actions in 2004.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Votes are lined up to appoint a senator
Top Democrats press for Mass. bill
By Matt Viser
Legislative leaders on Beacon Hill believe they have narrow majorities
in both chambers to give Governor Deval Patrick the power to appoint an
interim US senator, in a sign that the controversial measure may pass.
But the bill must still survive Republican attempts to delay or kill it
through parliamentary maneuvers.
In a key development, House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, who has been
publicly noncommittal, made a decision to back the proposal and was
privately calling members yesterday to make the case. House
vote-counters said support among lawmakers numbers in the mid-80s - more
than enough in the 160-member body.
Patrick has signaled privately that he’d like to sign the bill by Friday
and make an appointment within days, possibly having an interim senator
in place by next week.
But in the other chamber, Senate President Therese Murray has remained
far more reserved in her support, talking with senators but not
advocating for the change, according to Senate sources.
One high-ranking Senate official familiar with the vote count said the
numbers are there for passage - but narrowly. It is that chamber that
Republican Richard Tisei, the Senate minority leader, will try to table
the bill with the hopes of delaying it beyond its usefulness, or shaming
Democrats who are on the fence over to his side.
“The fact that they think this is going to move like a knife through a
stick of butter - that this is going to be a ‘shazamm’ bill that goes
through - well, it’s not,’’ Tisei said in an interview last night.
“We’re going to slow it down.’’
Republicans don’t oppose the concept of an interim senator, but they
think it’s unfair for Democrats to change the law for this appointment.
Murray and DeLeo both declined to comment last night.
Passage would reverberate from Beacon Hill to Washington on an issue
that has been a focal point of Massachusetts politics since Edward M.
Kennedy’s death last month.
Top Democrats in Washington have been aggressively pushing for
Massachusetts to temporarily fill the seat to give them more leeway in
approving President Obama’s national health care plan. Shortly before
his death, Kennedy himself advocated for the change in law.
Under the rules of the state Senate, the minority party could hold up
the measure for up to five sessions. Whether those delays take place
over several weeks or several days depends on how Murray sets the
schedule. She could call for a session every day next week, for example,
and Tisei would be out of delay tactics by the end of the week.
Murray could also opt to hold consecutive sessions in a single day, a
move she has never done. She is unlikely to take that approach,
according to senators close to her.
She has been under significant pressure, though, to take a more active
role, fielding phone calls in recent weeks from White House senior
adviser David Axelrod, US Senate majority leader Harry Reid, and
Kennedy’s widow, Vicki.
“I feel quite optimistic that we have the votes on the Senate side,’’
said state Senator Robert O’Leary, a Barnstable Democrat and top
supporter of the proposal. “People have thought about the significance
of it and people have started moving in a position in support of it.’’
He estimated that supporters in the Senate had a margin of roughly three
votes.
Meanwhile, the joint Election Laws Committee began voting yesterday on
the measure in anticipation of a vote by the full House tomorrow.
The legislation, which went out at 11 p.m. Monday to members of the
committee, would require any appointee to come from the same political
party as the person who previously held the office. The appointee would
serve for about four months, until a special election on Jan. 19 fills
the seat for the remaining two years of Kennedy’s term.
“If the voters wanted a Democrat to serve until 2012, it’s only fair for
the interim to be of that party,’’ said state Representative Michael
Moran, a Boston Democrat and a cochairman of the committee.
The 17-member committee was told to register their votes by 11 p.m.
tonight. The committee cochairs both expect it to be approved, but not
without opposition.
“I believe that the time has elapsed for our opportunity to do
something,’’ said state Representative Paul Kujawski, a Democrat from
Webster and a committee member who plans to vote against the change. “We
changed the law, we’ve made a commitment. . . . I believe that’s what we
have to stick by.’’
The legislation would not prohibit an interim appointee from seeking the
seat permanently, a requirement that some fear would be
unconstitutional. Instead, House and Senate lawmakers are considering a
resolution that would make it clear that they don’t want the appointee
to run for the seat.
Attorney General Martha Coakley, the only Democrat so far to formally
announce a candidacy for the US Senate, said yesterday that she
supported the change. She said she has expressed her views to Murray,
one of her top supporters.
“We know how Senator Kennedy would have voted on many of the important
issues coming before the Congress this fall,’’ Coakley said. “But . . .
whether I win this race or someone else wins, it’s going to be a lot
easier . . . to be able to pick up where an interim senator and staff
have kept up the work for the people of Massachusetts.’’
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
A Boston Herald editorial
Have they no shame?
The legislative discussion over an interim Senate appointment has gone
from bad to appalling, turning into an exercise in truly gross
partisanship.
It is no longer about merely assuring two votes for Massachusetts or
making a Democratic president and Senate majority leader Harry Reid
happy to have one more Democratic body in the Senate.
No, legislative drafters want to make sure even if the governorship
should change parties and fall into the hands of - oh, horrors! - a
Republican, that the seat would continue to be a Democratic one
virtually in perpetuity.
Yes, the legislation on which members of the Election Laws Committee are
currently being polled would specify that the governor would make the
interim appointment and that “any person so appointed shall be of the
same political party as the person vacating the office and thereby
creating the vacancy.”
Perhaps Republican contender Charlie Baker should be flattered that
Democratic lawmakers are, well, planning ahead - not making the same
“mistake” they made when they took the appointment power away from Gov.
Mitt Romney.
Oh, and since they wisely discovered they really can’t legally block an
appointee from running for the office, they’ll settle for a joint
resolution expressing disapproval should that happen.
Lawmakers should be embarrassed to sign on to this - even more so now
than in its original version.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|
