|
Written by John F. McManus
|
|
Friday, 21 August 2009 02:47 |
|
That Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) is near death is no secret. He wasn’t able to attend the recent funeral of his sister Eunice even though the proceedings were conducted a scant few miles from his home where he continues to battle brain cancer.
He did, however, have energy enough to send a remarkable letter to Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and state government leaders on August 18. It asked that the Massachusetts law dealing with the procedure for filling a vacant seat in the U.S. Senate be altered. The law, enacted in 2004, calls for any void in the state’s representation in the U.S. Senate be filled via a state-wide election no later than five months after the vacancy occurs. Kennedy wants an interim appointment made immediately so the state will have “continuity of representation” in the Senate while the election is held. His letter did not indicate whether the void need occur because of death, leaving open the possibility that he could resign if his wish becomes reality.
With the letter, the long-serving senior Bay State senator evidently conceded that he will be unable to participate in any further Senate work, including a looming vote on healthcare, one of his long-championed projects. It would seem to the casual observer that he is looking out for the best interests of the country and his state, but a further examination of the way the current law regarding succession came to be reveals a related and quite different motive.
In 2004 when the junior Massachusetts Senator, John Kerry, became the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, the state law regarding Senate succession gave the sitting governor the power to fill a vacancy. Had Kerry won that election and properly resigned his senate seat to take the higher office, then-Governor Mitt Romney would have named his successor. But Romney was a Republican and he undoubtedly would have chosen someone from the GOP to fill the vacancy — maybe even himself.
So the heavily democratic state legislature swiftly changed the law to what is on the books today. Kennedy’s letter contained his agreement that there be the election to fill a void as current law calls for, but now he wants the law altered so that the current governor, a democrat, can immediately fill the seat, and then have the interim appointee step aside while the election for a successor proceeds. The law does not call for such an arrangement.
According to the Boston Globe, Kennedy advisers including Kerry, “began discussions months ago about pushing for a change in the law.” Having made a change in 2004 to assure keeping the seat in democratic hands, they now want to change it again to guarantee that heavily democratic Massachusetts could be counted on to support the Obama administration’s agenda and the Democratic Party’s wishes without any interruption.
Senator Kennedy and others can claim that they are concerned only about the nation and some important votes looming in the U.S. Senate. But the blatant willingness to toy with a Massachusetts law that democrats shoved through to passage in 2004 indicates another certain goal. It may be hoped that Massachusetts voters will see through this latest call for another raw power play to serve the Democratic Party. But those same voters continue to send no one but the most liberal democrats to both the House and the Senate. And the state legislature has only a few lonely Republicans in each of its houses. In Massachusetts, whatever the Democrats want, they usually get.
Forecasts indicate that population density shifts expected to be gleaned from the 2010 census will result in Massachusetts losing one of its 11 seats in the U.S. House. There doesn’t seem to be any way that Bay State Democrats can tinker with federal laws to avoid that loss. But don’t be surprised if they try.
Trackback(0)
|