Massachusetts Senate Approves Bill Allowing Senate Appointment

by Charles Lemos, Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 12:51:38 PM EDT

The State Senate on Tuesday approved a bill that would let Gov. Deval Patrick appoint an interim replacement for the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy. The measure won passage in the House of Representatives last week and is expected to land on Mr. Patrick's desk Wednesday.
The appointee would serve in the United States Senate only until a special election takes place on Jan. 19, but could play a crucial role in the fate of health care legislation making its way through Congress. With Mr. Kennedy's seat empty, Senate Democrats are not assured the 60 votes required to break Republican filibusters.
Mr. Patrick has refused to discuss potential appointees, but Michael S. Dukakis, the former governor and 1988 presidential nominee, is said to be under consideration. Other possibilities include Paul G. Kirk Jr., a former aide to Mr. Kennedy and chairman of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation in Boston; Evelyn Murphy, a former lieutenant governor; and Charles Ogletree, a professor at Harvard Law School.
The bill does not prohibit the temporary appointee from seeking Mr. Kennedy's seat permanently -- legislators feared that such a condition would not pass constitutional muster -- but Mr. Patrick has said he will ask the appointee to promise not to run in the special election.
Mr. Patrick's office did not immediately return a call seeking comment on the vote.
The Senate voted 24 to 16, with all 5 Republicans and 11 Democrats opposed. Therese Murray, the Senate president, remained publicly noncommittal on the proposal until just before the vote, despite calls from the Obama administration and from Victoria Reggie Kennedy, Mr. Kennedy's widow. Ms. Murray ultimately supported it.

Under current law, Mr. Kennedy's seat would have remained empty until the special election on January 19, 2010. Now the seat is likely to be filled by week's end.

Tags: Governor Deval Patrick, Massachusetts Politics, Massachusetts Senate Seat (all tags)

Comments

16 Comments

Sort by

permalink

I'm relieved, but it sets a bad precident

We shouldn't be changing the rules whenever they're inconvenient; I'd have rather they passed a law stating that the governor can only appoint someone from the same party as the seat's former occupant or something that can pass relatively permanent muster.

That said, Massachusetts really needs a second senator in the game for the health care debate, and January is too long to wait.

by Dracomicron 2009-09-22 01:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

This bill does say that

There were two issues -- could the interim appointee run in the special election and would they have to be of the same party as the departing senator. This bill says yes to both, though Gov, Patrick has promised to appoint someone who definitely won't run.

by DaveMB 2009-09-22 01:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I'm relieved, but it sets a bad precident

I agree that this is playing games on the sly, but when you enemy is throwing dumptrucks full of mud on the playing field, I will worry about our uniforms getting a little dirty later.

Call it payback for them keeping Franken out of the Senate for 6 months with bullshite stall tactics...

by WashStateBlue 2009-09-22 03:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I'm relieved, but it sets a bad precident

I agree. Its wrong to change the rules to suit your political purposes.....some here think is right...but that just an example of whats wrong with politics today

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-09-22 05:45PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I'm relieved, but it sets a bad precident

I'd have rather they passed a law stating that the governor can only appoint someone from the same party as the seat's former occupant or something that can pass relatively permanent muster.

They did.

I think he 17th amendment set a bad precedant.

by DTOzone 2009-09-22 07:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I'm relieved, but it sets a bad precident

"We shouldn't be changing the rules whenever they're inconvenient"

sure we should, id be nice if people were farsighted and changed bad rules before the problem came to a head...but they dont

I remember in the 60 people talked about how to fix the problem with the way we elect presidents, what if somebody lost the popular vote but won in the electoral collage? but that was unlikley to happen and there are more important things to worry about

Then we got stuck with W

by jefft452 2009-09-22 09:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I'm relieved, but it sets a bad precident

"I'd have rather they passed a law stating that the governor can only appoint someone from the same party as the seat's former occupant"

Necessary, but not sufficient

Former Senator from party A, Gov from party B

Rabid partisan of party B walks down to registrar of voters and changes registration to party A
(You cant have a law that says its illegal to change parties)

Gov appoints newly minted member of party A to office who then votes with party B on each and every vote

by jefft452 2009-09-22 09:06PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I'm relieved, but it sets a bad precident

Well, obviously you can write the law to avoid that silly situation, and many states do.

by Steve M 2009-09-22 09:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

BTW, it would be kind of nice to see Mike Dukakis

Get the seat for the remainder of the time till the special election. Maybe even throw down a key vote for Health Care.

He was so beaten up by the media machine, who love fake macho men like GW Bush, but ridiculed Dukakis who actually served in Korea, unlike Bushy boy, who ducked Nam.

by WashStateBlue 2009-09-22 03:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

ugh...

Your kidding right....Dukakis was a dud...

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-09-22 05:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Betcha wish he won now

could've avoided that whole Bush father and son fiasco.

by DTOzone 2009-09-22 07:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Betcha wish he won now

Hey, at least he was man enough to apologize!

by Steve M 2009-09-22 07:15PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Betcha wish he won now

No Dukakis was a dud.....and to his credit Bush handled the Gulf War very well. His failure was not payign neough heed to the economy on the back end of his term...

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-09-23 07:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

You mean something

the danger in the economy Dukakis and the Democrats warned about? Too bad, Dukakis would've paid attention to it, seeing as he warned it was coming and all.

My grandmother could've handled the Gulf War the way he did...by the way, in hindsight, maybe not so great since we had to go back there and all.

by DTOzone 2009-09-23 10:04AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: You mean something

We didnt need to go back thats the problem. And thefact is the mission of the Gulf War was to drive Iraq's military out of Kuwait and thast exactly what we did. There was no one in congress particularly on our side who woud have supported an invasion of Iraq back than. Nor would the coalition of nations have supported it.

Dukakis was ill equipped to serve as President.....and yes I voted for Bush becuase he was the better candidate. I dont vote for a party I vote for a candidate. Dukakis would have been a disaster as President...

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-09-23 05:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

I agree

Yeppers. Glad it happened, but you shouldn't make laws that you would want change when circumstances change in very reasonable ways, like a REpublican Gov at some point.

by alectimmerman 2009-09-22 06:15PM | 0 recs