Teddy's Seat May Be Filled Today

[babylonsister]

Teddy's Seat May Be Filled Today
by Tom Schaller @ 10:33 AM



With the 24-16 vote by the Massachusetts State Senate--following the MA House's earlier approval--the path is now cleared for Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint a temporary custodian to occupy the late Ted Kennedy's vacated Senate seat until a January special election is held.

Rumored possibilities include former governor and 1988 Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis; former Democratic National Committee chair Paul Kirk; former Lt. Gov. Evelyn Murphy; and Harvard Law professor Charles Ogletree. Bloomberg seems to imply that Kirk is the favorite, and the Boston Globe notes that Kennedy's nephew and son--former MA Rep. Joe Kennedy and current Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy--have let the governor know they favor Kirk, a close family friend who lives on Cape Cod. The New York Times also strongly suggests that Kirk, who chairs the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation in Boston, is the frontrunner.

Presuming Kirk is tapped, only the timing seems in dispute. Bloomberg says it could happen as early as today; the Globe saying as early as tomorrow.

Regardless of the who and the when, as I previously argued here at 538, changing the vacancy appointment rules depending on the political situation:

Several state senators changed their votes from the last time the issue came up in 2004, when the Legislature, controlled by Democrats, changed the law to provide for a special election process to prevent Governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, from appointing a successor to US Senator John F. Kerry if Kerry had won the presidency.

“I think I made a mistake then,’’ said state Senator Steven A. Tolman, a Brighton Democrat. “This is politics, right? Sure it’s politics.’’

And state Senator Karen E. Spilka, an Ashland Democrat, said, “We should have done this then. . . . This to me is not a Democrat issue at this point. It’s not a Republican issue. It’s a Massachusetts issue.’’

Eleven Democrats joined all five Republicans in voting against the measure.

“It’s wrong to change the rules depending on who’s in power,’’ said state Senator Brian A. Joyce, a Milton Democrat who was a key architect of the legislation to establish special elections to fill Senate vacancies in 2004. “We shouldn’t change the rules by which we govern our democracy depending upon who the governor is.’’

With 91-year-old West Virginia's Robert Byrd's health failing and thus talk already underway about succession politics in that state--in WV, the governor appoints a successor, who then holds the seat until the next general election--it remains a very ripe moment for a national conversation, and perhaps a recommendation from a panel specially-appointed by the Senate itself, standardizing the procedures for filling Senate appointments.

more...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/teddys-seat-may-be-filled-today.html

[Statistical]

1. Sorry I agree with the Dems who voted against this one.

To strip this from Governor and then reinstate it less than 4 years ago can't be defended. It is partisan play pure and simple.

My larger concern is how far do you go before separation of powers is a "quaint idea".

Yeah sure the executive branch is "independent" <wink wink> we (the legislature) decide what it can and can not do based on who currently occupies it. The executive alternates between an all powerful rubber stamp or a do nothing figurehead depending on if it supports the legislature currently in power.

Sorry I know it is an important issue but ethical decisions are SUPPOSE to be hard. Making the right decision only when it is easy doesn't mean much.

[aquart]

2. Yes, it was partisan. And it should have been worded better.

They didn't think it through.

But no way in HELL should the full Senate have control over the individual state's Senate choices.

[LiberalAndProud]

3. The senate should not interfere.

That is just a very bad idea. The states can and should sort it out for themselves.