Senator Edward M. Kennedy, in a poignant acknowledgment of his mortality at a critical time in the national health care debate, has privately asked the governor and legislative leaders to change the succession law to guarantee that Massachusetts will not lack a Senate vote when his seat becomes vacant.
In a personal, sometimes wistful letter sent Tuesday to Governor Deval L. Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray, and House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, Kennedy asks that Patrick be given authority to appoint someone to the seat temporarily before voters choose a new senator in a special election. […]
In 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.”
As it is right now, a special election would be held within five months of a Senate vacancy occurring, leaving the seat unoccupied for that interim period. That law, as you may remember, was put in place in 2004 to prevent Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican Senator to John Kerry’s seat. The Globe writes that Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature — as well as Deval Patrick himself — are not keen on tinkering with the law again, nervous about being accused of “engineering a self-serving change to help their party”. However, Kennedy’s personal appeal might have some sway.
Of course, it’s pretty sobering to even be writing a post on this subject.
(H/T: Politico)
But yes the MA legislature needs to change the law to make sure we have a vote here.
that, in addition to allowing them to remove a Senator with a two-thirds vote (which they can already do), also allows them to make a temporary removal based on illness or incapacity to serve. The rule could specify that the governor of the removed Senator’s home state must appoint a new Senator from the same party as the old one, and that the Senate would reinstate the old Senator when the disability was over.
The way this would work is that the Senate could declare Byrd and Kennedy incapable of serving and remove them temporarily, without having to actually kick them out of the Senate. Manchin and Patrick would then appoint new Democratic Senators who would serve in place of Byrd and Kennedy, and if Byrd and Kennedy ever got better and could come back, the Senate could just dismiss the interim Senators and reinstate Byrd and Kennedy.
This sounds like an ageist measure, but it would actually be really beneficial for old Senators and prospective Senators, because it would immunize them against the kind of campaigns Ed Case and Rob Andrews have run in recent years — namely, “Vote for me because the other guy’s old and he might be too sick to be a Senator.” Lautenberg and Inouye could just say, “Doesn’t matter, because you’ll still get a functioning Democratic Senator, and when I get better I’ll come back and vote again.” It would also allow someone like Mike Castle to more easily become a septuagenarian freshman Senator, because people wouldn’t have to worry about his health.
If I understand procedure correctly, this could be accomplished through the creation of a Senate rule, which would require a simple majority vote. I can’t think of anyone who would be opposed.
I can’t imagine the US senate or politics without Ted Kennedy.
You know I kind of have mixed feelings about this. I still think as a general principal, people should be allowed to choose their senators, especially after the messes we had in New York and Illinois. However if Senator Kennedy was to die next week or sometime in the next few weeks. That could seriously put health care at risk. I think actually Texas has a pretty good system,where the governor appoints a placeholder and there’s a special election that occurs in the next few months.
Thanks, Sen. Kennedy. Very classy.
So…
1. Who does Patrick pick?
2. Does Byrd follow Kennedy’s lead (in retiring)?
All I can do is pray that he lives to see the bill signed into law.
People have been saying that he would, potentially, be unable to vote yes on the bill, due to his health. But I can’t imagine that there is anything that could keep Senator Kennedy from voting aye on a universal health care bill, short of death.
God Bless Senator Kennedy.
I wouldn’t expect anything less of Kennedy. I think not getting to be President actually made him a better Senator in the end. Most other Senators in that situation would’ve blundered back off into Senatorial anonymity (um, John Kerry?) or skulked around K street for a while, but Kennedy went back to the Senate, put himself on the forefront of important issues for another 30 years, and actually got stuff done. In my view, that makes him one of the very few US Senators who has actually lived up to his job description. Kennedy could always be counted on in my lifetime to do the right thing. He will be missed.
Of course, the General Court being as inherently slimy and self-serving as it is probably won’t honor Kennedy’s wishes, but if I were Patrick in such a situation (and I’m very glad I’m not) I would appoint John Olver as a placeholder. He’s a solid progressive who would do Kennedy proud, he’s about to lose his House seat to redistricting, and his combination of age and being from west of Worcester means he wouldn’t win the inevitable 36 way primary even if he wanted to. Plus it gives more time for the serious contenders to build up an operation without having to defend the seat. Olver was my Congressman and would make a fantastic Senator, even as a two year placeholder. That way we at least get another two years of Kennedy-lite before some triangulating scumbag like Markey or (shudder) Niki Tsongas takes it over.
I remember when I was 9 years old and Ted Kennedy was running against Jimmy Carter. My parents, who had voted for Carter and who loved him too, ended up voting for Ted Kennedy. I asked my dad why many years later, and he said that Ted Kennedy represents all the things that he loves about America and the Democratic party as a whole. My Dad’s politics are more in line with a Jimmy Carter or a Bill Clinton, but he has always been captivated by the Kennedy legacy.
I know it will be a sad day when Kennedy leaves the Senate. Whatever happens with replacing Kennedy, there will only be one Ted Kennedy.
but isn’t this the type of thing their critics are always accusing them of? Wanting a special set of rules and standards for them to conform to whatever their preference du jour is?
I hope Ted Kennedy is able to stay on as long as possible, but if his concern is ensuring that MA voters have two senators – he clearly has the power to guarantee that in his own hands, simply by resigning.
In fact, one can argue MA has not had “two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate” while he’s been in convalescence fighting his illness.
that the factional legislature will do this.
How come other states adopt our method of replacing vacancies? An immediate appointment by the governor followed by a special election a few months later. It’s about the only thing our state got right.
When Senate vacancy occurs, the governor has to set an election date.
Then the governor will appoint a Senator who is prohibited from being a candidate in the special election.
If you want to further tie the governor’s hands you can require the candidate be approved by the legislature.