Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterSun Editorial:
Representation at stake
Massachusetts should fix succession law to give voters full voice
Monday, Aug. 31, 2009 | 2:06 a.m.
The death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy last week has exposed a flaw in a five-year old Massachusetts law that changed how the state’s seats in the U.S. Senate are filled in the event of vacancies.
Bay State Democrats, who controlled the Legislature in 2004, did not want then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a conservative Republican, to appoint a temporary successor to Sen. John Kerry if Kerry’s campaign against President George W. Bush had been successful.
So they replaced the long-standing law requiring a gubernatorial appointment with one that required a special election. As it turned out, Kerry lost and the law was not used.
The flaw — that a special election would take at least five months, a period when Massachusetts would be underrepresented in the Senate — was not corrected back then.
A week before he died, however, Kennedy sent a letter to Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick and the state’s legislative leaders, affirming his support for the special-election law but also pointing out its flaw and asking that it be corrected.
“I believe it is vital for this Commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election,” he wrote.
Amending the law to allow the governor to appoint a senator, one who would agree to serve only temporarily until the winner of the special election is declared, makes sense.
It especially makes sense now, as this is an extraordinary time that calls for the views of Massachusetts voters to be fully represented. A historic vote on health care reform, a vote that could affect generations of Americans to come, is only one of the many important bills on the Senate’s post-recess agenda.
The Massachusetts Legislature should pass an amendment making this change as soon as possible.
Discussion: 19 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Corrections officer with Metro killed in U.S. 95 crash
- System fails to catch contractor’s family tie with county
- The pull of a drug, a push to the brink
- Where to watch UFC 106
- Findlay guard Joseph scores 33, talks about UNLV
- UNLV and Southern Illinois will be guarded tonight
- Bishop Gorman takes Sunset Region title in win over Cimarron
- Basic’s magical season continues with trip to state semifinals
- Reid clears major health care hurdle, daunting weeks ahead
- Was there an ulterior motive in parking the stripper-mobile?
Blogs
Culture and Entertainment
UFC 106 walk-in music: Griffin changes his tune, secures win over Ortiz
The Kats Report
For props, Lewis Black needs only his manic delivery and torrid material (7 Comments)
Elsewhere
Sands China raises $2.5 billion in Hong Kong IPO (2 Comments)
Marquardt v. Sonnen scheduled for UFC 109
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Will a fourth consecutive title by Jimmie Johnson be good or bad for NASCAR? (4 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The Jet Stream: And then there were four
Top Chef Episode 12: On keeping it simple
- Live chat
- Tuesday, noon PST
- Chat with Krista Creelman
- Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question
Calendar »
- 22 Sun
- 23 Mon
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
- 26 Thu
-
The Four Tops at The Orleans Showroom
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
The Chase at Downtown Cocktail Room
Downtown Cocktail Room | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Lady Gaga album release party at Revolution Lounge
Beatles Revolution Lounge | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Food drive at Christian Audigier
Christian Audigier The Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Above & Beyond at Moon
Moon Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Nice spin. Pure politics and hypocrisy.
On a scale of 1 to 10 (highest), it would be a 10 in world of hypocrisy for the State of Mass. do this.
Does the Sun has absolutely any prinicples?
Nope....when it comes to its thrist for pure political power.
Where was the author of this editorial five years ago?
Would this even be considered if Romney was still Governor? Hypocrisy is common amongst the left. We see it at every health care debate.
save on stationary; appoint another kennedy.
How can the Sun with a straight face, write such drivel?
If changing the law to prevent a gubernatorial appointment was such a necessity for the Massachusetts People to maintain the semblance of democracy in 2005, it makes for logical since that those same principles should hold true in 2009.
Can you say, "Double Standard?"
They have more Democrats in Utah then Republicans in Massachusetts yet Utah is much better off when it comes to taxes and many other things. Those Massachusetts Democrats are nothing but a bunch of losers.
This is putrid writing.
The state of Crapachusetts should go ahead and run with the special election. The longer it takes to fill the seat and at an enormous cost to taxpayers, just might wake those bozos up to whats been going on in their own backyard.
I think they meant KOOKACHUSETTS
The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts - or as New Hampshire residents call them, MA_ssholes. Nuff said.
There is no flaw in the law!! That is an asinine statement. Apparently The Las Vegas Sun is against senators being elected by the people. Un-freaking-believable.
The name crockachusetts comes to mind
The problem with the Sun and the Democrats is that they fail to realize America has worked because of rules. You play by the rules and win or lose. Now the Democrats want to change rules right and left, ignore laws, in essence do anything to stay in power and ram their distorted Socialist agendas through Congress.
To change the law now to allow an immediate replacement solidifies the Democratic political robbery. America will remember these actions for the next 50 years and NEVER elect another Democrat.
I think the author of this piece is right; Massachusetts should revise the law. And when they have another Republican governor they should change it back again. And then when they have a Democratic governor they should change it back again. And when they have another Republican governor they should change it back again. And then when they have a Democratic governor they should change it back again. And when they have another Republican governor they should change it back again. And then when they have a Democratic governor they should change it back again. And when they have another Republican governor they should change it back again. And then when they have a Democratic governor they should change it back again. And when they have another Republican governor they should change it back again. And then when they have a Democratic governor they should change it back again. And when they have another Republican governor they should change it back again. And then when they have a Democratic governor they should change it back again. And when they have another Republican governor they should change it back again. And then when they have a Democratic governor they should change it back again. And when they have another Republican governor they should change it back again. And then when they have a Democratic governor they should change it back again. And when they have another Republican governor they should change it back again. And then when they have a Democratic governor they should change it back again. And when they have another Republican governor they should change it back again. And then when they have a Democratic governor they should change it back again. And when they have another Republican governor they should change it back again. And then when they have a Democratic governor they should change it back again. And when they have another Republican governor they should change it back again. And then when they have a Democratic governor they should change it back again. And when they have another Republican governor they should change it back again. And then when they have a Democratic governor they should change it back again. And when they have another Republican governor they should change it back again. And then when they have a Democratic governor they should change it back again. And when they have another Republican governor they should change it back again. And then when they have a Democratic governor they should change it back again. And when they have another Republican governor they should change it back again. And then when they have a Democratic governor they should change it back again. And when they have another Republican governor they should change it back again.
And then they should leave the law alone - or maybe change it again, I'm not sure.
The long bony finger of Teddy Kennedy reaches out of the grave to rewrite a just and fair law to one that suits only uber liberals.
Larry5...
Are you saying that Massachusetts revised the law when they had a Republican governor and then when they had a Democratic governor they want to change it back again. And when they have another Republican governor they should change it back again. And then when they have a Democratic governor they should change it back again.
The insanity of it all...
Yes, I am all for the appointment of a temporary Senator by the governor, but it cant take effect till after the election of Teddys replacement.
In fact, no temporary appointments, elect a Senator by the governor to fill the spot or wait till the election. A 6 month temp will do no good. But whatever they choose, it cant go into effect till after the election.
Teddy has been out of the Senate for 15 months and never in that time did he think it was time for him to move on. He was self centered into wanting to die in office. These people are so full of themselves. Now the Dems must pay the price.