This really irritates me:
The state Senate passed a bill this afternoon that would allow Governor Deval Patrick to name an interim successor to Edward M. Kennedy, potentially paving the way for appointment of a new US senator later this week.
The Senate approved the measure by a 24-16 vote, leaving one final procedural hurdle in both chambers before the bill heads to Patrick’s desk. The House and Senate are expected to enact the bill on Wednesday, a formality unlikely to derail the effort.
***When the roll call had been tallied, it appeared that many state senators had switched their votes from the last time the issue came up. In 2004, the Democrat-dominated Legislature rejected a measure that would have allowed Republican Governor Mitt Romney to appoint an interim successor if Senator John F. Kerry had won the presidency. The state Senate killed the measure with a voice vote, so it is difficult to pinpoint who changed votes.
Last week, the House voted 95-to-58 to approve the successor bill. In 2004, the chamber overwhelmingly rejected the same measure.
There is no excuse for this kind of nonsense. I fully understand there are times for partisanship, but not when dealing with the law. This kind of gamesmanship, jiggering the law to put ideological allies in office, destroys confidence in the system, pisses away the moral high ground, and gives people the right to make arguments about “the Democrats are no better,” because in this case, they aren’t. If you can explain how this is any different from the Republicans and the right-wing blogosphere, after eight years of Bush, suddenly discovering the importance of oversight and minority party rights, I’m all ears.
Politically Lost
F.U.
All Gore and Limbagh are both fat.
So it’s OK when we do it.
Face
John seems concerned.
Joel
No good comes from this, especially since it was the Democrats who killed the appointment provision in the first place.
Cain
Yeah, I agree. Being moral is hard. It would have sucked though if they put in a republican senator as it would have really fucked things up.. ah teh sweet irony of Kennedy’s dream killed because of his replacement.
cain
Splitting Image
The difference is that the Democrats actually had to debate whether or not it was a good idea. That’s the extent of the difference.
Personally, I think the mistake was their haste in changing the law in 2004. Reverting to that state is, in the long run, a good thing. Even so, flip-flopping like they’ve done here is worse than having done nothing at all.
LM
I disagree. I don’t think it’s a Dem or Rep issue–no state should be left with only one senator for months and months. It makes sense to appoint an interim senator of the same party as the deceased senator, one who agrees not to run in the special election. Granted, Massachusetts should have realized this in 2004 when it passed a silly law out of false optimism that Kerry would no longer be senator come Jan. 2005. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t now correct a mistake that’s a clear detriment to the people there.
BenA
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the actual idea. Appoint a successor until a general election can be held. I get your distaste for the fact that the same basic measure was defeated in 2004.
On the other hand you have derided the Dems for not playing hardball and being weak as a governing party… but this is the same exact kind of behavoir that made the Republicans able to push through any kind of legislation they wanted.. It may not be 100% morally great… but I can deal. I think another Dem vote in the Senate is worth looking a bit too hypocritical…
I used to feel a bit more strongly about this kind of stuff, but after 8 years of the Bush Administration…. fuck it. This is small change.
Spiffy McBang
It’s not different. I think it’s good they’re doing it, due to circumstances; if they were changing things just because “we have teh powers, we shall use!”, that would be aggravating. But in a situation where you have to have that one person seated, now, or else reform sixty years in the making could go down the shitter, I think you can allow for an exception.
As for the flip side, if it was, say, some anti-gay marriage law, and the Republicans did the same, I would be significantly less happy on the merits of the cause (also the gay marriage thing is not a long-time issue). But I wouldn’t suggest it was bad politics. It would make sense.
Legalize
The difference is that the democratically-elected legislature and governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts voted to change the law. Laws are changed all the time by democratic rule. The alternative would produce the absurd and anti-democratic result of leaving Mass. without a senator for a number of months. The problem existed because of the rule change in 2004. This worked precisely as it should have. Ultimately, if the voters of Mass. don’t like it, they can throw the bums out.
Scuffletuffle
@LM: I agree with LM. I’m in the district, and I want representation, especially on health reform. At this point and after the last 8 years, I don’t care how it gets done.
Tom Betz
To me, this is a correction of the error committed in 2004.
The approach adopted here (appointment by the Governor of a temporary replacement pending a mandated special election to fill the position permanently) is the correct approach to filling Senate vacancies, to my way of thinking. It protects the state’s Senate voice while the voters make up their minds about who will be the permanent Senator, without regard for the Governor’s opinion or his political party.
AFAIC, this approach should be enshrined in the US Constitution — all states should employ it.
Brachiator
Unfortunately, both sides play with the rules (gerrymandering districts, special elections) to gain elective advantage. And they will ignore any disgust expressed by voters. This is more important to them than campaign contributions.
And in related news,
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/court-upholds-patersons-appointment-of-lieutenant-governor/?hp
Sometimes politicians try to hide such blatant displays of power, to keep up the pretense of citizen-oriented democracy, but when the mask drops, what is revealed is pretty damn ugly.
Violet
At least in this case they’re putting it back the way it was before. Not that that excuses it.
The best solution seems to be to have some sort of interim Senator appointed by the Governor that serves six to nine months or so, and can’t run for the seat. And then the election is held relatively quickly, during the term of the interm Senator, so that the people of the state get their “real” Senator quickly. That way, even if the Governor is from a different party than the departed Senator, the appointee doesn’t get to stick around forever, wreaking havoc.
jibeaux
I think you’re right about that, but OTOH if there were one, just one Republican Senator who out of decades of respect and affection for Ted Kennedy decided to not obstruct a vote on one of his abiding passions, it wouldn’t be necessary to replace his vote so soon. So I guess I’m saying that I’m with you on the principle, but only one side of the aisle having principles is a sucker’s game.
BenA
@Legalize:
Ultimately I bet the voters of Mass do like it.
Ash Can
I’m as partisan as they come, I want to see as many Dem votes in the Senate as possible…and this still makes me feel uneasy. I know that if I were on the other side, I’d want to choke someone over it. It’s a case of moving the goalposts, and that, on principle, sucks. I wish they hadn’t done this.
stacie
These guys are douchebags. They were wrong in 2004 and they’re just as wrong now. Morons. I kind of hope that in the eventual special election, Mass voters stick a moderate Republican into the seat just to wave a middle finger at their state reps.
cervantes
actually you are leaving out an important detail. The earlier bill established a special election, but with a long interval during which the seat would be vacant. This bill leaves the election intact, but just fills the gap with a super-interim successor, not someone who will fill out the term.
So it is arguably an improvement on the previous legislation, not a reversal. It just fixes the problem of several months during which the Commonwealth will lack a senator. If they had totally reversed themselves and given the governor the authority to appoint a senator to the remainder of the term you would have a more legitimate beef.
Guster
Sure I can explain how this is “different from the Republicans and the right-wing blogosphere, after eight years of Bush, suddenly discovering the importance of oversight and minority party rights.”
They discovered the important of o. and m.p.r. in an effort to prevent me from getting affordable healthcare. The Democrats are playing games in an effort to help me get affordable healthcare.
Maybe it’s shitty, but I make a ‘living’ as a novelist, and I’ve got a family. This is nonsense, but I’m willing to indulge in a little nonsense if it means my kid isn’t gonna be homeless if I break my leg.
aimai
I think that’s a ridiculous argument–especially if it comes in the form of “now what will the republicans say about us?” who gives a fuck. My state deserves full representation at this crucial time. The *country* deserves full Democratic representation at this crucial time. Ted Kennedy’s seat deserves full representation as the health care bill is being debated. I don’t care under what circumstances the original choice was taken out of the governor’s hands–it makes no sense generically speaking (and is quite unusual) to permit a seat to stand vacant so long just to placate an angry minority party–a party that is a minority in this state. What, are we to hold open the seat until the republicans get their act together to be competitive in MA? that will be the fourth freaking weekend of NEVER.
And, of course, the original “governor appoints senator…” was passed precisely because *everyone knew* that the specific Republican governor would seize the moment, if he could, to put a Republican into the Senate seat if Kerry left it vacant. Had the original law been drafted, as some are, to force the Governor to select a member of the holding party’s party there would have been no problem. But the Republicans didn’t want that because, they said, here in our commonwealth where “the love that dare not speak its name” is Republican, most of their voters are registered “independent” or rather “unenrolled” and it wasn’t clear that even with a “party of” designation the Republican party as constituted would ever get a look in for those Senate Seats.
Call us evil, naughty, or whatever you want but no sane person would have ever left a Senate Seat pick in the hands of Multiple Choice Mitt. This was not an abstract question. It was hardball politics in a hardball world when the original law was changed. And its still the same old story…a fight for love and glory.
I just wish we could give the damn thing to Howard Dean for the duration and elect him at the end of it. I’m throwing my hat in the ring (the coveted Aimai hat) for Capuano. Its a historic seat that has been well and truly served for a long time. We deserve someone great in it. And we need it right now. I don’t care how that person gets in. This is a knife fight.
aimai
Makewi
@LM:
In this case it is absolutely a Massachusetts Democratic party issue. They are changing the rules as it suits them, for purely political gain. To be fair, they had help/pressure from a larger group.
stickler
I think the Democrats have tried the “moral superiority” approach and have found it wanting. They got rolled, repeatedly.
This time, the MA Dems have decided to try “just do something, fer feck’s sake” approach.
It would be nice to see Harry Reid try it sometime.
noncarborundum
You could make the argument that the real “game” was played when the Democratic legislature changed the law to prevent Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican to the Senate in the event that Kerry won the presidency, and that this move simply restores the status quo ante.
Poopyman
Count me in with the majority here who think it’s better to return to the original way than to leave it as it currently is. And yes, that the 2004 change was wrong.
Deborah
Why? It was partisan and stupid in 2004, and while I’d prefer that they change it in a coolheaded, no emergency manner, the fact is no one pays attention to this stuff until it’s urgent. It’s still partisan, but it’s actually the right thing to do.
Stickler makes an excellent point. Also.
jibeaux
@Makewi:
Don’t you mean “Democrat Party”? and
@Guster: I think that’s actually a pretty good point. What do you write?
donovong
Fuck it – what aimai said.
russell
As a lefty and a resident of MA, allow me to say that the change in the law was a piece of self-evidently opportunistic and self-serving partisan crapola.
BruinKid
It’s not the perfect law, but it’ll do for now. What SHOULD be the law in all 50 states is what they have in Wyoming, where the party of the Senator who is no longer able to serve presents the Governor with a list of 3 or so names to choose from. That way, a Governor of a different party can’t mess around, which would violate what the people of the state wanted when they voted to send a Senator from that given party to D.C.
I’m not too keen on appointing only a placeholder until the next November of an even-numbered year, because the voters of that state should be allowed to at least have the decision to vote on whether the appointment was worthy to fill the seat, like they’ll do with Gillibrand in NY, and like how they did with Barrasso in WY.
Mutant Poodle
I actually think this is the right policy, and they are made foolish by their pettiness in 2004. I wouldn’t be upset if a version of the Massachusetts bill was in place nationwide – we’d be spared the Roland Burris’s of the world, or lengthy Senate vacancies.
It looks bad, but the cravenness was 5 years ago. Is there much doubt that the people of Massachusetts want their second senator at this time?
Martin
Hold on, what are the details of the bills?
In the most recent one, the appointee needs to be from the same party as the individual who vacated it, and a special election needs to be scheduled within a rather short period of time of the vacancy (the seat will be filled by election no later than Jan in this case).
If memory serves, the previous effort was nothing like this.
bob h
Ordinarily I would agree with you, but in this case the need for 60 votes to pass healthcare reform makes extraordinary action necessary.
mantis
Redistricting, rules for approval processes, interim appointments, etc. are always politically motivated votes. It’s tradition. Not saying it’s right, mind you, but it’s always been that way, and always will be.
flukebucket
And that is what makes it so beautiful.
Martin
Oh, and I should add, is there a better solution to the problem than what MA just passed? Is it possible than in the last 5 years, they noticed just how fucked up the appointment process in places like IL and NY became and decided that it was a bigger problem than they previously thought?
Why are we criticizing a good law, again?
Punchy
No such thing
aimai
Oh, Martin said it more politely.
aimai
Brachiator
@Martin:
Because it’s not a good law. And MA would change it again if necessary to keep control over the choice of a senator.
Shinobi
O Noes, the people involved in politics are politicians. Despair!
John Cole
@Martin: Because the motivation for it was so blatantly and clearly just partisan bullshit, as was the 2004 stuff, and you all of you would be screaming if the roles were reversed.
BruinKid
Oh, and just to add, in case anyone makes the argument that if the people are upset with the Governor’s decision, they can choose to punish that person at the ballot box, not so fast. In many states, the governorship is term-limited. You could be dealing with a governor whose term is up by the time the next federal election rolls around anyway, so that person wouldn’t really be held accountable by the voters (unless they pulled an immediate recall drive, which can easily turn into an even bigger fiasco, as we Californians demonstrated).
Think about it this way. If a beloved Democratic Senator passed away, and the governor was a term-limited ultra-right-wing Republican whose term was going to end in 15 months anyway, what if he appointed… Ann Coulter to replace that Democratic Senator, just to spite the people? Would anyone actually claim that was fair to the people of the state? Do you actually think anyone other than the most diehard of political junkies would actually think about how, when voting for governor, that the governor gets to decide Senate appointments?
Loneoak
It seems like there’s only one sensible way to do this crap. Within 30 days, the governor must appoint someone from the same party as the vacated seat who is bound by law not to run in the next election. If that next election is less than a year away, there is no need for a special election. If the scheduled election is more than one year away, a special election should be held in 90 days.
Easy peasy.
Shade Tail
I don’t really like it either, Mr. Cole, but it had to be done. Sometimes, the right thing to do isn’t good, but it is *necessary*.
Besides, partisan shenanigans done for the right reason are morally superior to those done for the wrong reason. *That* is the big difference between this case and the GOP’s criminal activities.
You say: “…and you all of you would be screaming if the roles were reversed.”
Well, of course we would. That’s because the GOP are a bunch of criminals trying to screw the entire country.
whitey
Why is it not a good law?
It doesn’t override the prior law, it complements it.
Frankly, what is irresponsible is Democrats not passing this in 04 because they didn’t want even an interim Republican Senator.
Or, alternatively, they could have done what many other states do and require a replacement Senator of the same party.
The Democrats did a half-assed option the first time, and now are fixing it. I’m not willing to sacrifice health care reform for that principle.
Warren Terra
I’m with Spitting Image (#5) and Tom Betz (#11), and likely with others: the rule the MA lege has created here is an improvement over the rule they introduced in 2004. Both were partisan and opportunist, but at least this one leans towards offering the citizens of the Commonwealth more representation, while the 2004 rules reduced representation.
Much as I hate Republicans, and Pawlenty, I’d rather have had an interim Senator appointed to serve until Minnesota’s courts got their collective thumb out and seated Franken, even one who’d have followed the Republicans in lockstep, maybe even the regrettable Norm Coleman serving in an interim capacity, than have had Minnesota with down a Senator for those five months.
Along the same principle, if a Presidential election isn’t resolved in time for the inauguration then the Speaker serves as President until there’s a legitimate President, and it seems to me that a few months of Acting President Dennis Hastert (remember him?) would would have been vastly preferable to truncating the process to install Dubya, or having no-one at all until a fair examination of Florida happened.
Basically: bad process, but decent result, and I’m all for interim appointments until a legitimately democratic successor can be chosen in a timely fashion.
Elvis Elvisberg
I agree with cervantes. This bill merely patches up an incomplete law, one that left the state without representation for far too long. Now, the no-representation issue is fixed (temporary appointee), and the ultimate decision is left to the voters by a special election.
Hooray! Now we have achieved the best of all possible worlds!
Poopyman
What, if the Repubs had done it? Meh. That would be expected.
BruinKid
@John Cole: I wouldn’t be.
Chris O.
Yeah well, we need health care this year, so I don’t really care. This is way less unethical than letting uninsured people continue to die.
Tsulagi
Disagree. No law says state laws can’t be changed for situations going forward. And elections do have consequences. It’s the retroactive shit I have a problem with criminalizing or granting immunity for past actions. That’s changing the rules.
Personally, think TX has one of the best mechanisms for these kind of events. IIRC, the governor appoints an interim successor with a special election held within six months.
Sentient Puddle
Pretty much what everyone else said about passing good law. No real need to repeat all that.
I think if anywhere, the outrage should be directed at both the 2004 legislation (very clearly partisan gamesmanship) and how bloody long it took them to get around to this (you’ve known that Kennedy was terminally ill for now long now?). Those are the clear faults. Let’s not be taking aim at smart legislation in the process.
Kirk
Ditto to Cervantes. There is a big difference, and I eagerly await JC’s getting off his high horse. It’s quite unbecoming.
John
Within 30 days, the governor must appoint someone from the same party as the vacated seat who is bound by law not to run in the next election.
I don’t think that would be constitutional. The Constitution says that anyone who is 30, has resided in the US for 9 years, and is a resident of the state (I think) can be elected Senator. That would include appointed senators. You’d need a constitutional amendment to forbid appointed senators from running in the election. The state, of course, can do as it likes with regard to special elections.
Tom65
Welcome to politics. You think the GOP would be navel-gazing right now if the shoe were on the other foot?
Peter
I think you miss the forest for the trees. Yes the Democrats shouldn’t have acted hastily in 2004. Also, this is the best option (allow for an interim appointment and then hold an election). What we should be discussing is why we don’t have a uniform system for cases like this. In 50 states, there are 50 different systems for replacing a vacant Senate seat. Even if the filibuster didn’t exist (another discussion), every state needs its 2 Senators to represent them in the Senate (Amy Klobuchar’s office was overwhelmed during the Franken-Coleman fiasco). Also, look at the various disasters that happened when Obama and Clinton quit the Senate. Instead, we leave one of the most important functions of representative Democracy (representation) to the whims of fickle statewide politicians. People don’t really think about this (another problem with our country) and so no action is taken. We didn’t make any effort to change the system after Blagojevich and Minnesota. I’m not holding my breath any effort will be made at the federal level to bring about change.
blahblahblah
As a Massachusetts resident I fully agree. We enacted a law in ’04 to prevent Mittens from selecting John Kerry’s successor should he win the White House. That law was in effect when Senator Kennedy died. To change the law after the fact is to abuse the legislative process in ways that ought be unconstitutional.
I’m not impressed by my state government. And this position is not taken due to partisanship, as I’m not Republican and most certainly would not have voted for one. If legislators for the state of Massachusetts wanted to meet Ted Kennedy’s wish to replace him after his death by appointment, they should have passed a law to this effect prior to it. Duh.
dday
I’d be perfectly willing to see a law in all 50 states with a temporary replacement followed by a quick-strike election within four months. Ideally I’d see just the election but with only 100 Senators and procedural hurdles in the Senate being what they are it’s crucial to have full representation.
MA perfected their law by combining the temporary appointment with the special election. I’d much rather that be the case for CO, NY, IL and DE instead of people waiting two years to weigh in on their own Senate representation.
I don’t think moral high ground means a lot to uninsured sick people.
Martin
Actually, no I wouldn’t.
And how is it a bad law?
Whatever party the voters selected won the seat keeps the seat for a period of weeks until a special election can be set up. Then the voters decide (quickly). Every state should have this arrangement. We never would have had the fuckups in NY or IL if they had that kind of law, and you wouldn’t have the administration plucking seats to get a favorable governor appointment in states that allow the governor to pick, flipping blue to red seats or v/v.
Makewi
I think your commenters disagree with you on this one Mr. Cole. I’d say they are just fine with this sort of activity so long as it’s their team that is benefiting from it.
aimai
I don’t get the argument that Cole is making, really. I mean, look, if you want to argue that the 2004 law was a bad one, be my guest. But it doesn’t follow that because some other legislators, five years ago, made a bad/politicized decision that the people of the state should continue to suffer because of it when the state now has time, means, motive, and opportunity to *right the wrong* of the first bad law and institute a sensible new policy that is unarguably fair. And what’s not fair about this new law? I mean, if the governor were Mitt Romney this time around what would his beef, on behalf of his party, be, exactly? The MA lame duck Republicans are poutraging all over the place but the law is a perfectly reasonable and non partisan one–even if the original 2004 decision was a bad one. What, can we never correct a mistake for fear of making the republicans point and throw poop? That’s not really a good strategy since they are planning to do it anyway.
aimai
lambaste
https://balloon-juice.com/?p=27156#comment-1377154
Cervantes seems to be the only one acquainted with the actual differences between pre-2004, 2004-2009, and 2009+.
The new law is better than that of pre-2004, and vastly better than that of 2004-2009.
Granted, the optics are poor, but the error was made in 2004, not now.
Tom
DIAF, Cole. You are totally wrong. Everything aimai said is spot on.
chris
John, this is completely different because SHUT UP, that’s why.
Seriously, I agree with you. Calvinball sucks no matter who’s in charge.
Tim F Too
I agree. This is petty and juvenile of the Dems. They are basically acting like Republicans. Why have laws if they can just be changed like this?
That being said…
This is the correct law. States should not go without representation for an extended period of time.
Joe Beese
Ordinarily I would agree with you, but in this case the need for 60 votes to pass healthcare reform makes extraordinary action necessary.
“Ordinarily I would agree with you, but in this case the need to keep America safe from terrorists makes enhanced interrogation techniques necessary.”
See how that works?
aimai
Oh, I’m sorry Makewi, were you under the impression that politics was not “the art of the possible?” Look, there are laws and there is law breaking, and there are rules and there is rule making. Making new rules is not the same as breaking laws. Remember when the Texas Lege used the Department of Homeland SEcurity to track down its missing Democratic legislators? That was *breaking the law*. Changing the rules, or enforcing a rule, is by definition not the same thing. I’m sorry if occasionally when politicians do politics an angel doesn’t get his wings. Also, there is no easter bunny. But there’s no point pretending this is the next thing to Jeffrey Dahmer–or Cheney for that matter.
aimai
Tsulagi
@Makewi:
Nope, it’s the state of MA that is benefiting.
whitey
Continuing my thought:
What is more (small d) democratic:
What Massachusetts has done replacing Kennedy (including allowing a temporary option, but Patrick making clear it will not be someone running) or what New York did replacing Clinton (the Governor who was not elected as Governor appointing someone who would in effect have a massive head start on being a Senator for the next 50 years, without being elected ever in a statewide contest)?
Hint: It’s Massachusetts.
Malron
John, I just have one question:
Would you rather be morally superior to the GOP or have affordable health care?
aimai
Ah, Joe Beese makes my point exactly. See–when the legislature meets and publicly debates a new law, and passes the new law, its *exactly* not the same as the secret FISA go around or illegal torture. Exactly.Not.The.Same. and putting it into a semantic form where you swap around some of the words doesn’t make it the same thing.
aimai
Robin
one argument i heard (don’t remember where on my blogroll), that i have no immediate opinion about went something like this: votes chose two democratic senators (legislative) and a republican govenor (executive). if romney had been allowed to make the appointment, it would have overridden the decision to have two democratic senators, have one branch interfere with the voters mandate on another branch. or something.
Political Pragmatist
Haven’t read all the responses, so if someone brought this up, I second the motion.
There is a difference. Romney was not a Democrat, so he could replace a Democrat with a Republican. This is not fair to Dems who voted for Kerry from their party. The law should be the governor must replace an officeholder with a member of that party. That would be fair.
To be left without representation at this time would be unfair to the people of Mass and to the country.
And we’re looking at a repeat when Byrd finally gives up the ghost.
Why don’t these assholes know when to get out?
whitey
@John 52
You are probably right, I read the case law the same way.
That said, in practice a Governor should appoint a short term placeholder only, and should get assurances to that end. It just can’t be mandated by law.
Calouste
Why does it take so f’ing long to organize a special election in the U.S. anyway? In the U.K. they can run a by-election in 3-4 weeks after the seat becomes vacant. Under certain circumstances (Parliament on recess for example, and by tradition the by-election will only be called after the funeral if the previous MP has died) this might stretch to 10-12 weeks, but that’s it.
neil
This new law is totally consistent with the previous law. It would’ve been a betrayal of their values not to change the law. The original law was passed for the benefit of the party. If a legislator refuses to change the law for benefit of the party, he is being dishonest about his motivation for passing the original law.
The main thing one can say in defense of these laws is that, as well as serving the party’s interests, it serves the voters’ interests. Who doubts that, had Romney appointed a Republican senator, the Massachusetts electorate would’ve voted him out in the very next election? Who doubts that a Democrat will win the next special election (which will still be held on the same date, I believe)?
aimai
Calouste,
Its actually hard to organize a special election if you want to give candidates a chance to go to the voters. In the UK they have special elections all the time because the party can have to go to the voters at any time. In addition I don’t think they have quite the tradition we do of every hat in the ring and self nomination. We are going to have a special election in December and I can tell you that its going to be very hard for anyone who isn’t already a national or statewide figure to make a dent in the confusion and indifference of the voters. Its going to take every day of that time to get information out to the voters. That’s from the perspective of a voter and a candidate.
Its also expensive and difficult to run elections in this country, and in the commonwealth, out of season because (I expect) they are always in the process of cleaning up the voter rolls and sending out new cards to tell people where to vote. It takes time to set up a polling place, get in clerks, and publish the lists of registered voters. In fact I’m not sure how they do it at an interim election like this. If they rely only on previous lists that could disenfranchise some people, if they try to update the list that could disenfranchise others. Its going to be a mess.
aimai
Omnes Omnibus
@aimai: There so absolutely is an Easter bunny, dammit!
This, to me, is one of those politics ain’t beanball moments. Are the optics (I hate that term) great? No. It is, however, legal. So, fuck it, let MA have do as it chooses. If the people of MA hate what was done, they can speak at the ballot box during the next state elections.
Demo Woman
Every state decides how to replace Senators. They can change the law whenever they want according to their state constitutions. If folks are uneasy about it, call your representatives and ask them to amend the US Constitution.
shoutingattherain
Will this make Conservatives angry? If so, I’m all for it.
russell
Yes. It’s both an improvement to the law, *and* a blatant act of partisan self-dealing.
Kind of a win-win.
Plus, if I can borrow a phrase of Thers’ from the great Blagojevich throw-down, it has a certain joie de f**k you that you just have to admire.
Will
Somehow, I don’t think I’ll be complaining about that 60th Democratic Senator when the health care roll call is announced.
jayackroyd
I happen to agree with John, but aimai’s first comment was truly awesome.
And, in the event, if they appoint somebody good, like Atul Gawande, I will live with the sausage making.
Omnes Omnibus
I also think there is a difference between not playing dirty and choosing to unilaterally disarm. I don’t really want Dems to play dirty, but I do want them to use procedural rules and whatever other advantages they have to win. I think that this ball is in touch and we should play it.
Also, joie de fuck you… tee hee.
tim
Sorry, but this is EXACTLY what the Dems should be doing: playing HARDBALL against the Republicans, who take no prisoners when they are in positions of power.
They passed a law to make it LEGAL for them to do what they are doing, so what’s the problem, Cole? They are in the MAJORITY, and they are using that position to power to move legislation as they see fit, just as the spineless dems in Washington ought to be doing.
But again, I forget that you of all people, who enabled and cheered on Bush for five, six years, are in no position to pass judgement.
Jay B.
Why have laws if they can just be changed like this?
What does this even mean? Did they pass the law in the dark of night? Did they hold the vote open? Is there some time limit we’re supposed to endure before modifying or changing laws? The elected representatives of the state openly debated changing the law and then changed it.
And frankly, John the real power play already happened in 2004. That’s when your panties should have been bunched. THAT was unfair, in so far as these things go. Allowing citizens full representation in the Senate is not at all unfair.
Also, what aimai said, repeatedly.
General Winfield Stuck
No argument here. Would just say that sometimes the stakes are so high as to permit doing something for the simple reason you can. Not a recipe for moral superiority, of even to break even. The low side of the dem balance sheet got a check mark on this one, but still is a sight better than the wingers.
We don’t live in a perfect world, specially when saving sick folks facing early and preventable death is on the table.
danimal
All I know is that I despised turd blossom’s redistricting scheme in Texas a few years ago. This law is only slightly less offensive to me, because, while it is blatantly partisan, it does lead to better representation for the state of MA.
I’m glad that my team is winning the game this time, but the more the game is played, the more our democracy suffers.
rob!
Is there some reason each state can’t/didn’t pass a law that says, if a vacancy in the Senate comes up, the Governor cannot appoint a replacement from the opposite party? Clearly, if the people voted to put an R in the Senate, the seat should be filled by an R, and vice versa for a Democrat.
Why do people who make the laws make things so goddamn COMPLICATED?
georgia pig
That makes no sense. Law-making almost always involves partisanship. That’s why we form parties. You can question the political advisability of making such a change at this point of time, and the Mass legislators may pay a political price. But they might just be looking out for the interests of their constituents, and not pay a price. Aimai is right, and your concerns have a Villager-like quality, i.e., the Mass legislature is upsetting some sort of unwritten “bipartisan” DC code of ethics. In fact, this is arguably not partisan at all, but instead a state vs. federal issue.
Jay B.
@General Winfield Stuck:
So, in your perfect world, the people of Massachusetts would lack representation in the Senate?
Funkhauser
There is no sacred law to be preserved. Law is but a product of politics. In politics, you win, or you drag your feet and delay and let the system run its course, and the other side wins. And you lose.
This is the lesson of the last eight years. Politics is bare-knuckled.
Jay B.
Clearly, if the people voted to put an R in the Senate, the seat should be filled by an R, and vice versa for a Democrat..
Because it’s clearly impossible to change your political affiliation for expediency’s sake. Just ask Arlen Specter.
John Casey
Jesus wept.
Please explain what democratic virtue would have been maintained by leaving the office vacant for 5 months, 5 months which will be critical to enacting legislation that Sen. Kennedy worked for pretty much his whole career.
How many people would suffer for your prissy self-righteousness, John?
JC
Dan L
The Mass. legislature is protecting the interests of the voters of Massachusetts. Are we to believe that their interests would have been served by a Romney-appointed Republican? Or that their interests are served by a vacant seat now? No. Politics is messy.
Dan L
The Mass. legislature is protecting the interests of the voters of Massachusetts. Are we to believe that their interests would have been served by a Romney-appointed Republican? Or that their interests are served by a vacant seat now? No. Politics is messy.
Guster
@jibeaux: Well, I think John’s making a pretty common mistake. If you oppose ‘A’ when it’s trying to devour chubby-cheeked babies, you are a hypocrite if you do not oppose ‘A’ when it’s trying to devour big-eyed calves.
I write thrillers, usually. Just sold a few YA novels, though. And I’m such a good self-promoter that I remain anonymous everywhere. I’m just that clever.
Warren Terra
@Georgia Pig, #87
Leaving aside whether it’s legal – and I’m suspicious, considering that the Mass. legislature specifically removed just such a provision to avoid court challenges – this is not adequate.
You might consider, for example, what happened recently in Alaska when then-Governor Sarah Palin had the job of appointing someone to fill a vacant seat in the state legislature previously held by a Democrat. Palin essentially manufactured not one but a series of so-called Democrats that she wanted installed in the slot. In that case, the state law apparently required an appointee of the same party (it’s more complicated, but that’s the part relevant to your proposal; and of course the rules governing the regulation of appointment to a state and a federal office differ).
Similarly, when Senator Judd Gregg was going to resign to become Obama’s Commerce Secretary, the Democratic Governor Jim Lynch faced accusations from the right that his proposed appointee (a former Gregg aide) was too moderate, and demands from the left that Lynch (himself rather a blue dog) should appoint a Democrat, or at least a genuine RINO, to fill Gregg’s seat for two years.
Appointment is imho necessary, because only appointment is really fast – but the appointment should last only long enough for a quick campaign and a fair special election to happen.
Dave
What aimai said, minus any implicit benefit-of-the-doubt good will she has for our JC.
Let it be noted, even if only by me, that John Cole is simply dying for a reason to renounce Democrats and liberal politics. I predict he’ll be a full-on third-party weirdo in like two months, if not sooner.
Cyrus
FBOFW, Matt Yglesias argues that both the 2004 bill and this one are morally and intellectually consistent and defensible.
Our government almost is parliamentary in a way: all else being equal, party membership of Congressmen is far more important than any of their beliefs or character traits. But no federal or state laws reflect this at all; in fact, the First Amendment itself would strictly curtail a lot of attempts at that. So in order to keep the kind of representation people want, sometimes laws have to be changed to keep up with, for example, deaths and impending retirements and stuff.
It looks shady, and I agree with BruinKid that Wyoming’s approach is probably better than this bill, and the best way to prevent to this particular problem would have been for Kennedy to resign in the winter of 2008 (he could have made it effective at a later date, starting the clock on the special election while still serving in office), but given that Kennedy didn’t, changing the law again just isn’t all that bad.
General Winfield Stuck
@Jay B.:
IN my perfect world. when someone pushes for a law to get passed, and then changes it’s mind when they could benefit from the law being changed back by steamroller, then that is not a particularly noble thing.
Otherwise, you didn’t read my comment very well and throw back the “perfect world” remark in a dishonest way. I meant it to say I approve of what they did because we don’t live in a perfect world.
Chuchundra
You know what the rule is? We’re in charge…so fuck you.
That was the rule when the Bushies were in the White House. That was the rule in 2003 Texas redistricting. That was the rule during the 2000 Florida debacle. So that’s the rule now.
Democrats are in charge in Massachusetts, so fuck you. We’re changing the rules. I don’t know why GOPers can do whatever they like when they’ve got the whip hand but Dems are expected to stick to some kind of fair principle when they’re in charge. Fuck that shit.
Here’s that rule again in case you missed it. We’re in charge, so fuck you.
HTH. HAND.
tc125231
@General Winfield Stuck: Yeah, many of the same people who tell me that it’s not worthwhile to perform a legal action to save the 45,000 people (per the last Harvard study) who die each year due to lack of health care, will justify torture because of the 3000 plus people killed on 9/11.
See, it’s not worthwile if Kieffer Sutherland doesn’t do it on an effing TV show….
This of course exempts Mr. Cole, whose heart is indubitably pure….
neil
I completely get JC’s point – and I didn’t support the change in 2004 in the way it was made – but as a citizen of Massachusetts, I’m pretty happy that Mitt flippin’ Romney wasn’t going to get the chance to replace a Democrat with one of his adoring flunkies – which is exactly what would have happened had Kerry won the Presidential election.
I think they’ve got it right now – I think the rule they’ve passed is sensible, and I would have liked it to go this way in 2004. But it didn’t. What was the Legislature supposed to do under these circumstances? Not fix it?
Besides which – I’ve lived a lifetime watching Republicans gerrymander, game, and manipulate the system – and nobody says boo about it – and, in fact, they get applauded for it. Anything that frigs with Republicans is the Lord’s work, as far as I’m concerned.
Deborah
@BruinKid: We have all been pwned by Wyoming. How deeply embarrassing.
eric k
Look politics isn’t a family monopoly game with some set of pre agreed upon rules.
They worked within the law, the law leaves it up to the states and the legislature voted on it. If the people don’t like it they can vote the legislature out. It isn’t like the gov arbitrarily changed the rules with no oversight.
Jay B.
IN my perfect world. when someone pushes for a law to get passed, and then changes it’s mind when they could benefit from the law being changed back by steamroller, then that is not a particularly noble thing.
Who pushed for the law then changed their minds? Who is being victimized here by “steamroller” politics? What’s noble about the actual outcome of your “moral” approach?
The voters of Massachusetts clearly saw the 2004 change as power politics — it’s impossible not to — and they “punished” the offenders by increasing the number of Democrats in the State House AND electing Deval Patrick. And now, after an open and public debate, they modified the current law by adding in a new provision for an interim senator.
This all just seems like ridiculous hand-wringing over a completely legal and proper vote which allows the people of the Commonwealth to be properly represented in Congress.
We should NEVER wonder why Democrats can’t get anything passed. We might criticize him, but it’s more obvious than ever we are a party of Harry Reids.
El Tiburon
What the fuck Chuchundra said.
Playing Mister Nice guy is fucking over. I’m ready for some fucking Tom “FUcking Hammer Time” Delay up in this Congrizzie.
Let’s pull some fucking fingernails and waterboard some of these bastards if it will get them to listen.
You know we’re not fighting for tax cuts for the wealthy or for billions in subsidies to the insurance conglomerates, we are fighting for fucking health insurance so people don’t die. We are fighting to end torture and indefinite detention, you know things that really, really suck.
So sorry if the little wussies out there can’t stand politics Big-Boy style. I wish there was more of it from the democrats, but they are too chickenshit.
So fuck ’em and feed ’em fisheads.
Chuchundra, Bravo sir, Bravo!
burnspbesq
@John Cole:
Not all of us. I would muttering under my breath, something like “OK, you wanna play, let’s play.”
Politics is a contact sport.
John Cole
There’s a handy epitaph for the Democratic majority- “The optics are bad.”
It may actually be a better law, but the fact of the matter is they did this out of blatant partisanship in 2004, and now, because Kennedy died, they changed it again to suit their needs.
Where were all the Democratic bills to fix this in 2004-2008? Oh, yeah. There were none, because there was no advantage to be had.
And to those of you advancing the “yeah, it sucks, but we need health care and representation in Mass.,” I don’t want to hear any whining about Republican ends justifying the means logic in the future.
I can’t believe someone actually called me a concern troll. Too damned funny. I’m a lot of things, but concern troll?
General Winfield Stuck
@Jay B.:
Jaysus dude, you need to chill some. I AGREE WITH CHANGING THE LAW. Just not using the hammer of the majority in every instance. You do, so be it. I support being completely ruthless in politicking and have been since being on this blog, but how the dems do things in actual governance matters politically and your brand of power politics all day every day has costs at the ballot box, Mostly from independents. who decide our elections, and they don’t much like using the hammer all the time, from either party. Play rough, but play smart is the best motto, I think.
Guster
@John Cole: John, what do you mean, if the roles were reversed?
You mean if instead of the Democrats playing idiotic games to help me with healthcare, the Republicans were playing idiotic games to help me with healthcare?
Because that’s the only way the roles are reversed.
Omnes Omnibus
There weren’t any because there was no issue at the time. There are many laws on the books that could, and should be fixed. A lot of them only get fixed when the problem is noticeable.
Everyone whines that Dems won’t play tough, won’t play hardball. Well, here it is. They have been playing by rules that the other side does not recognize. They are now fighting in the trenches. It is ugly, but it is legal. So “fuck’em and feed’em fishheads.”
scarshapedstar
Fuck ’em.
In case this is unclear: The moment Kennedy died, Republicans smiled and breathed a sigh of relief, as their filibuster had come back to life.
And now they have to worry again. Boo fuckin’ hoo. It’s not pretty, it’s not fair, but they’re still worse.
Guster
And John: My problem with the Republicans claiming that the ends justify the means is that their ends suck. Their ends damage the country.
Arguing that the ends justify the means in cases where the ends have actual value is completely different. You’re pretending it’s precisely the same.
Jay B.
@John Cole:
This doesn’t make any sense: “Where were all the Democratic bills to fix this in 2004-2008? Oh, yeah. There were none, because there was no advantage to be had.”
Circumstances changed when Kennedy died. When facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?
And to those of you advancing the “yeah, it sucks, but we need health care and representation in Mass.,” I don’t want to hear any whining about Republican ends justifying the means logic in the future.
Oh, I see. Because it’s “morally” problematic that 5 years ago, people did something else, citizens shouldn’t have representation now. Serves ’em right!
No wait. That doesn’t make sense either.
If, say, Utah did exactly the same thing, do you really think it would be an issue on the left? Shit, Frank Murowski appointed his own daughter to the Senate and, other than some mocking, I don’t remember much in the way of outrage.
Johnny
Does anything else really matter? It’s not like we’re going to be looking back in 40 years and complaining about when they changed the law. Do we complain now that the Senate was the literal the pawn of entrenched interests until the 17th Amendment in 1913? Not really. We’re just glad they changed it.
Yeah, it’s annoying that political parties have to be up against the wall before they change structural rules, but it’s outweighed by the fact that they changed the law for the better. In the long run, that’s all that matters.
General Winfield Stuck
@John Cole:
While I don’t fully disagree with this, it needs to be clarified that what Mass. dems are doing is perfectly legal and above board. They have the right to use their majority for legislation in the way they see fit, And like always, the voters will grade their actions later. And my guess is they will give a thumbs up.
IN contrast, a lot of what Bush and wingers did was not necessarily legal unless one thinks letting Bugs Bunny make the call is legit.
gwangung
He’s not pretending—THEY ARE THE SAME. And it’s REALLLLL problematic when the Dems get as corrupt as the Republicans were in the early 2000s.
That said, it’s still a law that should be on the books.
Comrade Sock Puppet of the Great Satan
Although I’m glad we’re going to have 60 nominally Democratic senators, I agree with John that doing it this way sucks.
The 2004 law was a disservice to Massachusetts, and they could have accomplished the same goals by copying the Wyoming law on having a shortlist from which the Governor was mandated to pick from. It was as egregious as the Texas GOP’s attempt to gerrymander the state’s congressional representation.
torrentprime
@LM:
Only scanned the thread, but yeah: The state deserves full representation, and there is no stupid “but not if a R gets to replace Kerry” exception. This is fixing partisan stupidity, not extending it.
General Winfield Stuck
I guess I don’t assign a lot of principles when viewing politics. I ignored them most of my life, and got into it when Bush got elected in 2000.
I saw politics as nothing more than a perpetual food fight that was better than gun fight, but was just as morally bereft. Nothing has really changed, and the only sainthood or sinner methods are the kind that gets or loses you the most votes come election time,. NO heroes in this arena, but the bounds of legality have to be met, or else it could turn into a gunfight.
I bitch when the repubs do something I don’t like and they bitch when dems do the same, and that is the way it is and maybe has to be with human imperfections calling the shots.
Libby
Awesome thread. My thought is we’re all going to bitch about what the other party does, no matter what the instant political considerations are but John Cole, with due respect, so what if both parties do it? Meaning it’s a problem but why single out this incident? This stuff goes on everywhere and I’ve seen worse, with gerrymandering of districts at the local level.
I’m in the camp that thinks these situations come up frequently enough that there should one national standard for replacing federal representatives. Let the states dick around with the state and local standards but DC is where the big money and the big issues are decided and no state should be short a Rep no matter what’s going on.
The governor should be required to appoint a successor from the same party as held the seat within say 30 days or less and a special election should be scheduled within a reasonable time frame so no state would have an unelected Rep for more than a year. I see no reason why the appointee shouldn’t be allowed to run for it.
In any event, in the instant case, it’s clear the intent of the people is to have two Democratic Senators. That’s what they voted for at election time. So I’m not getting what’s so bad about this bill. The hypocrisy? As far I can see, in both cases it preserved the intent of the electorate.
John
Arguments about process are almost always really arguments about substance.
Guster
@gwangung: You think that arguing that the means justify the ends when the ends are damaging is precisely the same as arguing that the means justify the ends when the ends are beneficial.
That is very curious.
You think that these two things are equivalent:
a) I jaywalked to save the baby from the oncoming traffic.
b) I jaywalked to kick the old lady in the knee.
ricky
Yes. Let Massachusettes’ 6.5 million people have one vote on health care reform while the states which gave us the gang of 6 have twelve and about the same number of people.
aimai
Well, I’ve got to come back one last time and challenge this (and with all due respect to my beloved host, here, JC, whose blog I love):
“The Optics Are Bad.” ? Really. No this is the opposite of the “optics” issue in politics. When Democrats, or anyone else, say the “optics” are bad on a policy they mean that you should avoid doing something–even a good something–because stupid people may make hay out of it. And the cardinal sin for Democrats is usually doing anything that gets Republicans pissed at them. See Acorn, defunding of… For once the Democrats and, more particularly, the non partisan legislators of MA have said “fuck the optics–we have needs as a state that can be met, legally, by having the governor appoint an interim senator.” This has nothing to do with optics.
this concern about “Optics” exists in a world where there is some real relationship between, say, what MA legislators do and what Texas Legislators do. But there isn’t. When the Republicans want to rape and pillage and gerrymander they don’t check with us to get our permission and they sure as fuck don’t worry about the “optics.” And you know what? I agree with that. I never complained when Republicans acted like Republicans–only when they broke the law to do it. Making a bad law, and reversing a bad law, legally, with due process is *not breaking the law.* Its just not.
More to the point: when a MA citizen gets up in the morning, or any political persuasion, we ought not to worry about what some republican asshole in another state is going to say about how we run our politics and our statehouse. Hell, we don’t even care what our own Republican members say or think about us–why? Because our fucking governor Mitt Romney ran against all of us calling us the biggest bunch of losers, whores, welfare deadbeats and commies of all time. The optics of that were really terrible–and he did it anyway. So when someone asks me to give a flying fuck what some republican, somewhere, thinks about how MA legislators do their jobs? I refer them to Mitt. He can clue you all in on just how important Republican tears are to Massachusetts voters.
John Cole
@aimai: We disagree. I actually think the law is a better law, but I hate how it came to pass. It was naked partisanship in 2004, and again in 2009.
If you changed nothing in this story but switched the (D) with an (R) many of you would be screaming.
Zuzu's Petals
@John Cole:
Well yeah, I see your point, but consider this …
Under the old law a Senator dies and the office is vacant until the special election. Under the new law the office is held by someone from the same party until the special election.
How am I hurt by the fact that my (hypothetical) state continues with a Republican Senator for a few more months until I can vote on a new one?
Cyrus
What is the principle here, exactly? That Senate seats whose Senators become unable to serve in mid-term should remain unfilled until the next regular election, or that those seats should be filled by gubernatorial appointment, or by state legislature vote, or by special election? But the first option sucks for everyone, and each state chooses for themselves some variation on the last three. That a legislative body shouldn’t change its position in a short span of time, even if circumstances have changed?
Again, yes, it looks (a little) bad, and again, Kennedy himself could and should have prevented this (sentimentally I don’t fault him too badly for wanting to be in the Senate for the fruition of his life’s work, but realistically he knew there was some risk of this happening), and again Wyoming’s policy seems better than what Massachusetts is about to do, but that’s it.
Unless there an ethical principle that what looks bad is bad, I don’t see a problem with this.
And as for “if Republicans did it, you’d be pissed.” Well, annoyed, sure, but that’s a bit of a false equivalence. I’m pissed about Republicans fired prosecutors for not trumping up charges on a partisan basis, for ordering or at least cordoning torture, for probably literally jailing a Democrat for no crime at all. I’m not saying “Republicans are worse so this is OK” here. The Bush administration broke the law, not merely changed it freely for convenience, and that’s the worst of what Massachusetts Democrats can possibly be accused of here.
Jay B.
If you changed nothing in this story but switched the (D) with an® many of you would be screaming.
Yeah because it’s obvious that we Democrats hardly ever criticize our own party. It’s always in-march-step with us. That’s us all over.
It’s either that you really do think that Democrats are exactly like Republicans or that in some situations, changing the law is not only defensible, but reflects the popular will — and that even (gasp, faint, clutch) “naked partisanship” isn’t always a bad thing.
eric k
of course it was naked partisanship in both cases. As it should be!
The voters in MASS have repeatedly voted for Kennedy and Kerry to be their Senators. They have voted in large democratic majorities in their state legislature. The legislature was doing their will by ensuring that Kerry wasn’t replaced by a Romney lackey. They rushed through the bill and now are fixing it. They probably should have done this sooner, that doesn’t mean it is a bad idea to do it now.
aimai
Its not partisan–unless you think there is some higher law that says that as long as the senate seat was held by a democrat, and will be held by a democrat again after the special election, the time between (the vacancy) is owed to republicans in some sense? What is partisan about a state legislature deciding it doesn’t want an empty senate seat at a crucial time? The time is crucial for *all the citizens* regardless of who they have voted for in the past or will vote for in the future. The state has needs: corporate, civil, federal and a workload that simply must be done. There’s nothing partisan about wanting to see that seat filled, temporarily. Nothing! That ought to be obvious because, in fact, most states regardless of their party history have laws that fill those vacancies as fast as can be. The law as it now stands jumps with a Rawlsian “theory of justice” style perspective in which the exact same law would/should/will apply without regard to the party affiliation of all the parties. The fact that it was voted in by a full and free discussion among legislators of both parties makes it legal and eminently fair–as fair as any law in a democratic system that is arrived at by legal processes.
And, in reality, the facts are these: In MA there is, in fact, no other “side” to be considered. The Republicans have fucked their way out of contention for the Senate seat in any realistic sense by *always being partisan assholes* and always siding with a national party that excoriates the rest of MA’s citizenry. It is, in fact, the Republican party that “played politics” with the vote by trying to hold up the debate and the vote just to be pissy. And you know who they pissed off? The actual independent/republican voters I’ve talked to. Those guys respect the needs of the state and they thought *the optics* of Republican legislative grandstanding on the corpse of Kennedy was really stupid. Me, I dont complain when Republican’s act like Republicans and delayed the state’s business–I just shrug and say “too bad, so sad, for power plays to work you actually have to earn some political power.”
Guster
@John Cole: “If you changed nothing in this story but switched the (D) with an® many of you would be screaming.”
You keep saying that like it means something.
If you switched the D with an R, you’d be switching the effort to expand health coverage with the effort to restrict health coverage. Those aren’t always just letters. In this case, at least, they actually mean something.
I’ll say it a third time: playing unsavory-but-legal political games while trying to invade random countries is not the same as playing unsavory-but-legal political games while trying to improve the health care system.
I’m not sure why this is so hard for you. Tazing a disrespectful old lady is not the same as tazing an aggressive young guy.
blackfrancis789
Now I have representation in the U.S. Senate. How horrible for me.
Nettron Flux
It becomes clear to me how aimai cleaned up on Joe Klein a couple of weeks ago
John Cole
@blackfrancis789: And you would have had the Democrats not changed the law in 2004. Your point?
jfxgillis
blahblahblah #56:
Actually, it literally could not be more Constitutional. The XVIIth Amendment:
There’s no “after the fact” here. Although the vacancy first occurred in the past, it continues in the present. The “fact” isn’t “after,” it’s “during” and “now.” In fact, I could honestly argue that the Constitution anticipated exactly this circumstance. Look at the grammar:
Vacancy occurs. Governor issues writ. PROVIDED. Legislature may empower. Until. People fill vacancy.
As somebody else mentioned above, by a confluence of circumstances the MA legislature bumbled into what should be the model law anyway (barring repeal of the XVIIth Amendment altogether, which isn’t going to happen).
John Cole
@Guster: Except the games remain unsavory. And apparently it is a crime to point out they are, in fact, unsavory games in a blog post, but not in the comments.
Tsulagi
@John Cole:
Not I.
If McCain face planted tomorrow, or preceded Kennedy, and AZ has a screwed up mechanism (don’t know) where they could be without full representation for months, would have no problem with their legislature and governor correcting it. Would not see how Dems could legitimately say “Not fair, we should get that unearned break to make our job easier.” State voters elected Kennedy and McCain. If those two are unable to serve, voters should get replacements with similar positions within a short period of time to fill in until the next election.
John Cole
The entire motivation of the 2004 law was mere partisan politics. And I understand your point- hell, I thought Jim Jefford should have been required to repay all his Republican supporters when he switched. He was elected as a Republican, not as a Democrat, and lots of people spent lots of hours and money working to elect him as a Republican.
And likewise, I think, as someone stated above, they probably have stumbled into the model law for how this sort of transition should happen. But it still irritates me how it happened. The only reason they changed the law in 2004 was partisan politics, and in 2009, the situation changed, so it is time to change the law again to benefit the party in power. I understand you like the outcome, and I understand that the Republicans using Kennedy’s death as an opportunity to filibuster his life’s work is scummy and all too typical, but can you not at any level understand how this looks like the same old shit?
blackfrancis789
@John Cole:
But they had changed the law in 2004. God forbid they protect a Democratic seat in the Senate and insure that it still has a Democrat in it, if Kerry had won. Call me a partisan hack, but a Democrat was elected to that seat, and in that specific case, it should remain a Democratic seat. Something about the will of the people and all.
Martin
Mostly because everything is voluntary. The locations are often people’s homes, the poll workers are all volunteers – and all of that takes time to set up.
Zuzu's Petals
@John Cole:
Personally I think the model law would be like the one described for Wyoming (?), where the Governor works off a list of candidates … no last minute party switches to wiggle in.
You’re right that it was partisan in 2004 and it’s partisan now. And there’s no doubt I would be pissed off if it was being done by a Republican legislature to push a Republican agenda.
But then someone might point out to me that I’m actually no worse off than I was with a temporary replacement Republican Senator than I was with the original Republican Senator.
But you’re right that the gut reaction is purely subjective.
Martin
Name one good law that has ever been passed that wasn’t motivated by actual events?
Just one.
I think you forget how the legislative branch works.
Zuzu's Petals
Oops, grammar alert @143. Where’s the edit button?!
Guster
@John Cole: Well, I’m with you on that. They’re definitely unsavory. But I think you went a lot farther (further?) when you said there’s no difference between this and when the Rs did similar.
General Winfield Stuck
@John Cole:
Nice to see the fire for blogging back, dude.
John Cole
Fair point. It is possible/probable I am just being block-headed about this. I look back at the abuses of the last decade (literally extending votes to strong arm people to vote for trade deals, etc.) and then see the Democrats conveniently passing things on a party line that just coincidentally meets their immediate partisan needs, and it pisses me off. You have to remember my recent political background when synthesizing my responses to current events.
aimai
But John, dear John, I never objected to a “party line vote” when the Republicans did it. I think party line votes are good. If a party wants something badly enough, and is willing to stand up and take the heat for it (or the credit) they should do it. I hate this bipartisan shtick–and I hated it when the Democrats got suckered into it and tried to make nice with the Republicans and got shut out anyway.
But this case is really, really, really, different from the party line issue. The fact of the matter is that the state as a whole needs its reps in place. Democrats might prefer a Democratic senator, and the Republican minority might prefer a Republican senator but in fact if there was such a thing as a non partisan elder statesman both parties should/would be happy with such a figurehead filling that space. Except that the point of having such a person is to have someone who will do something at a highly partisan time in the Senate and the Federal level. To my mind the various State lege people who are honestly and quickly and legally trying to fill this slot with a temporary holder are acting in a definitively non partisan manner–in a manner required of them by law. And the Republicans who are putting up a fight are doing so symbolically, simply because they can. That’s the definition of partisan hackery–they have no goal *but* obstruction. I don’t think we can even begin to understand what the legislators are doing if we don’t admit that one side (whether majority or minority doesn’t matter) is trying to *increase the official representation of the state in order to get the state’s business done in a timely fashion* and the other side is simply obstructing the process just to fuck over the voters on the grounds that…well…what grounds? Its a transparent attempt to punish democratic voters for having had the temereity to elect a guy who died in office and for wanting to see democratic policies enacted at the federal level.
I understand that the R. party is threatening vague legal action–which I definitely think they should take if they have a legal leg to stand on–its important not to rush things, or do things in an illegal manner and if the appointment needs a two thirds majority to take effect immiediatly then it must be passed with a 2/3 majority or it should be blocked, legally. But lets not lose sight of the fact that the Republicans are only being so punctilious because they want to fuck over the majority voters and citizens in the state, and they don’t mind fucking over their own voters and the independents by denying them representation. Its going to be a pyhrric victory for the Republicans if they manage to delay or cripple the emergency appointment. But it will be a worse defeat for the voters. And that’s what’s really going on here.
aimai
aimai
caffinated
This is a refreshing change from the unilateral disarmament policy that Democrats have been following for most of my life and I’m strongly in favor.
2liberal
ma residents voted for an overwhelming majority of democrats. i don’t see anything wrong with legislating to prevent an R governor to appoint a conservative R who would not represent the state, but rather national Rs.
Mass should have a senator during this time and the legislature and governor are doing the right thing.
JR
Let’s take the party labels away for a second and examine it as a hypothetical:
The state of East Carolina decides that it no longer wants to have its governor appoint Senators for several years in the event of a vacancy, and instead would rather allow the people to elect an interim Senator in a special election.
Later, a vacancy arises at a time when not having equal representation in the Senate actually has a major impact on the welfare of the people of East Carolina. The state house realizes the value of having someone holding the seat, and decides to modify the original plan: instead of leaving the seat empty until a quick special election can be called, the governor can appoint a seat-warmer to handle the office until that special election (which, as a result of the earlier change in law, is still much sooner than it otherwise would be). Now, not only can the people quickly choose a successor when a vacancy arises, but they aren’t denied representation in the interim.
Putting it another way: the change to a special election is still good, but a deficiency that normally wouldn’t matter (i.e. not having two Senators for a few months) is suddenly glaring, and this new law corrects it. Nothing wrong with that.
It’s only when the party labels are inserted that this becomes somehow dastardly, when in an abstract sense this is both desirable and a good example of responsive government.
Lihtox
@BruinKid: What happens if the Senator is an independent? Maybe the Senator himself should provide (at the beginning of his term and updated as necessary) a list of potential replacements. That would better ensure that the Senator’s replacement is one who ideologically similar, not just someone who happens to be on the same team.
Tom65
Again with the navel gazing.
Aside from all the perfectly good logic behind keeping a Dem in a Dem seat, there’s still the satisfying (for me anyway) afterglow of watching Dems act like they have a fucking majority – for once.
This is politics, not Mother-May-I.
Martin
And that’s a fair perspective, but I think the bottom line, regardless of party, is whether the resulting law is better or worse.
Back during the Blago crap the general consensus from the left was that the best solution was appointment of same party as lost seat with a quick special election. That thinking held for Clinton’s seat and for all the other elected officials that left office to join the administration, in part because there were moments when Obama could have been accused of pulling out Republicans from seats where Democratic governors could have appointed Democrats. There was a lot of criticism from the left when Gillibrand was appointed not because of any disappointment with Gillibrand, but because it’s an inherently undemocratic way of choosing a senator that is far more partisan than this kind of law could possibly be construed.
That’s to say, the left was arguing that a fair policy might work against us in a few cases today, but in 4, 8, 12 years, we’ll be glad we put fair policies in place. Massachusetts passed exactly what the left was asking for – and asking for it well before Kennedy might lose office. It’s the same policy that we would hope West Virginia would use if (heaven forbid) Byrd needs to step down, even though you have a Democratic governor but might vote Republican for the senate seat.
pattonbt
I guess I just do not see anything wrong with this. I do not even think the optics are bad. 2004 – sure, bad. 2009, good fix, right fix. Sometimes you dont see problems until they are there, and this seems to be one of those cases. Sure its the D’s cleaning up their own poop, but they are cleaning it up.
I think Mass saw – right now – all the crap that has happened in IL, NY, MN, etc. and decided to do the right thing for their states federal representation. Sure the right thing was very, very, very convenient for the Mass Dems, but it doesnt change that it was the right thing. The Mass Dems were wrong in 2004 (or poor is maybe better), no argument, and had they punished for that, so be it. But a right fix is a right fix.
I guess I come down on the side that if all the party identifiers in this case were changed from D to R, I would have zero issue with the call. States should not be without representation for an inordinate amount of time. So whether D or R, the Wyoming process, which this new Mass process mimics, should be the rule. And if takes an actual case to occur to spur a state to make the change, so be it.
Jennifer
I think Dickens summed it up best:
(sic in original)
That is to say, any law which would leave the people of the state unrepresented for 4 or 5 months, regardless of the circumstances under which it came into being, is asinine and needs to be changed, full stop. The embarrassment for partisan hackery, if any, is connected with the action in 2004. And even then, no responsible party to the action should be embarrassed of the 2004 law, because an utterly predictable hack like Romney would have missed no opportunity to foist upon the people of MA a hack crony in clear contravention of their will as expressed at the ballot box. The shame should fall upon those who made the 2004 law transparently necessary.
Hint: they’re still making such actions necessary.
Complaining about being cockpunched doesn’t stop the cockpunching; only counter-cockpunching works with a cockpuncher. Knife at a gunfight & etc.
Joe Buck
The people voted for a Democrat, who didn’t serve out his term. Last time around, Mitt Romney was poised to put a Republican into a Senate seat, when no Republican possibly could have won. This time, the Democrats are going to put a Democrat in to replace a Democrat, and the wrote the law to require the governor to choose a member of the same party as the member that is being replaced.
baldheadeddork
Remember the Minnesota recount last winter…spring…and early summer? Yes, the chances of that happening in Massachusetts are infinitesimal, but the odds are not any longer than one party manipulating the law to keep a seat open for eight months after an election. If that happened under the current Massachusetts law, the seat would remain empty for over a year.
The 2004 change to take away the appointment from the governor was a political hack move, but requiring a special election to fill the seat is more democratic than the old rule of the governor appointing a replacement to serve out the term. This change is another move motivated by bad politics, but I think a case can be made that the substance of the change – full representation for the people of Massachusetts in the several months between the vacancy and the election of a permanent replacement – is a good move.
Jesse Ewiak
Yup, it’s partisan. So what. That’s the way the game is played, at least by professionals,
Hell, I think the MA Dems should make changing the method the very 1st order of business everytime the governorship changes parties. GOP? Special election. DNC? Appointment then election.
Maybe there’s some conservative or Broder-like columnist for the Globe or Herald who would get the vapors from this, but again so fucking what.
The only people truly worried about this are Republicans, who oppose this because they hope that they could turn Kennedy’s tragic death into an opportunity to kill by filibuster his greatest legislative priority, one which the people of Massachusetts overwhelmingly support.
Sleeper
This is all a pretty minor story when you get down to it, but I for one hope it’s a small sign of bigger partisan things to come. We need more of this brand of politics. I hate this bipartisan nonsense. If it’s legal and it helps us, then do it. Fuck the other side. They can choke on it. If politicians go too far, then they’ll lose their jobs the next time up at bat. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. That goes for all sides, by the way. If Kerry had won and the 2004 law hadn’t been passed, Romney would have been a fool to appoint a Democrat to Kerry’s seat if he thought he could get away (as a matter of practical politics) with putting a Republican in there. Is it legal? and Does it help my goals? Those are the only questions that matter in politics.
And I disagree that the optics on this are bad. Losing when you could have won makes for the worst optics of all. In ten years no one is going to fucking care about the Great Massachusetts Senatorial Coup D’Etat of ’09, or whatever the GOP Massholes end up calling it. But they’ll remember if we lost health care reform by one vote.
mclaren
This isn’t just “crap,” it’s unethical on the Democrats’ part and possibly illegal.
These kind of dishonest and likely unconstitutional laws offer a good example of why a lot of voters register as “independents” nowadays. Everyone knows the current Republican party is a disgrace and a stain on the republic, but the Democrats are capable of engaging in some pretty loathsome partisan gamesmanship and logic-chopping and legal calisthenics too. Obviously the Demos are nowhere in the same league as the epochal world-beating corruption and pathological lying of the previous 28 years of the Republicans…
…Yet. But if the Demos stay in power long enough…well, who knows?
What we really need is an Eisenhower Republican party. Remember Ike? Fiscal prudence, irreproachable ethics, refusal to indulge in partisan hackery, a strong defense with an equally strong prohibition against defense contractor looting, a rejection of gerrymandering, strong support for basic science, solid expenditures for national infrastructure.
Eisenhower would be the ideal presidential candidate today.
brantl
I think that any governor’s appointment should have to come from the party that won the last election for that office, and it should be interim until there can be a special election, unless some minimum time limit has been met (say, if less then half the term is left for House, 1/3 for Senate). I don’t think Mittens should have gotten to appoint a Republican to replace a Democrat that won the election, nor do I think that a Democrat should get to appoint a Democrat to replace a Republican that won an election, either.
Sleeper
@mclaren:
I don’t see it as unethical. They’re correcting a bad law that would keep Massachusetts without a Senator for months, by adding a mechanism to allow a temporary office-holder prior to the special election. Nothing unethical or illegal that I can see.
Yeah, the Fifties were a great time to be white in America.
While Eisenhower was the last “decent” Republican president we’ve had (no American president has ever really been all that ethical or good, when you get down to it, but he was less awful than the more recent ones), you’re kind of glossing over quite a bit there. We knocked over democracies in Iran and Guatemala, and helped Moscow crush an emerging one in Hungary. (Alright, he refused to use nukes on the Viet Minh like the French asked. Stevenson would have done the same though.) Continued carving up Latin America and the Caribbean (Papa Doc came to power during the Eisenhower years, with lots of generous aid from Uncle Sam). Quite literally, hundreds of thousands of people were killed by Eisenhower’s foreign policy. Which in the long arc of our history, makes him fairly typical, and compared the death tolls racked up by successors Johnson, Nixon, and Bush II, makes him something of a dabbler. I don’t mean to impugn the man unfairly; I think that it’s impossible for anyone to be president of the modern American Empire without getting that kind of blood on your hands, it’s part and parcel of the job now. He was better than some and no worse than most.
I’d like to think that today Eisenhower would find himself too embarrassed to associate with the GOP. Maybe that’s naive of me though.
Mr Furious
At first glance, I thought this was horseshit, and that the Dems should lie in the bed they constructed. But the more I thought about it, the more I came to the conclusion that these lawmakers are ostensibly working towards the desires of the electorate—who deserve full representation, and the representation they want. If the legislature were acting against the popular will, they would be punished in the next election.
The fact that Kennedy’s life’s work might hang in the balance—and that his opponents quite probably stalled the vote hoping he would die before getting to cast it, was all I needed to cross over. That Massachusetts would be shorted his vote between now and January seems too cruel an irony.
The new law is better than the old one anyway.
aimai
At Mclaren:
It is neither unethical nor illegal. There is a very bright line between both those categories and what is going on in MA. Calling a perfectly normal legislative debate, conducted in the open, with perfectly normal antecedents and goals “illegal” doesn’t make it so. Please do let us know what “laws” are being broken in the legislature trying to fill a vacant seat?
aimai
mere mortal
I would be delighted.
The first bill, in 2004, sought to prevent a situation where a governor would appoint a senator, who would have all the advantages of the office when he ran in a special election. It is possible that legislators at that time considered it against the best principles of democracy for a governor to have so large a role in determining a senator. Since the event seen at the time was a senator leaving one office for another, the time with no senator was not a huge deal (election to the end of session, plus part of the start of another session).
The second bill, in 2009, sought to prevent a situation where the state would only have one senator for an extended period when legislation important to the state was being considered due to a senator leaving office mid-session. This legislation preserves the best principles of the first bill (the appointed senator may not run for the office in the special election), while acting on other democratic best principles, that the state should be fully represented in the senate.
It’s quite easy to accuse politicians of corruption, hypocrisy, and worse. After all, we see en flagrante evidence of it often, and even more often we see things that make us suspect it.
Not here, these are two bills where legislators acted both in the best interests of their constituents, and in accordance with the best principles of democracy.
mere mortal
I would like to revise my previous post in one way.
Looking over the history of appointed senators since the 17th amendment was ratified, an appointed senator is almost as likely to win the seat as to lose it in the subsequent election (59 elected – 56 tossed). This was not what I expected to be the case.
This trend does not change when considering the modern era (say, since 1964).
But I suppose the point about the power of the office still holds somewhat, as the office gives an appointed individual a 50% or better chance to capture the seat vs. the entire field of other candidates (the statistic above includes the primary contests as well as the elections).
ThirdPartyVoter
It doesn’t matter if a Republican or Democrat is sitting in the seat since they are both about big government getting bigger. They are all crooked and only interested in their own self interests. Changing the law to meet ideological party lines (why is it different from 2004) is hypocritical. Many of you have stated it’s OK to bend the rules now because…(pick your reason)
Next time the same hypocritical politicians will be bending the rules to make sure they stay in power and you may not be on their side. Welcome to Socialism in the making !!