Oh, THAT Law? Never Mind!

Is anyone else troubled by what's brewing in Massachusetts politics? Look, we mourn Ted Kennedy as much as the next guy--assuming that the next guy isn't some gun-toting, gay-bashing, intelligent-design-believing redneck--but we're concerned by the machinations underway in the Bay State to replace him in the Senate ("Push Grows for Fast Choice on Successor to Kennedy").

Until recently, Massachusetts law provided that, if a US senator was unable to complete his or her term, the governor would appoint a replacement. Indeed, this is the law in many states, as we all learned this year when the governors of Illinois, Delaware, New York, and Colorado, all had the opportunity to appoint senators to positions vacated as a result of the presidential election and subsequent cabinet appointments. The process is questionable at best, and often fraught with ethical and political danger, as was seen in the Illinois and New York situations. In Massachusetts, though, the law is different: Current law holds that a special election must be held between 145 and 160 days after the vacancy occurs.

Shortly before his death, Senator Ted Kennedy implored state leaders to change the law to allow the governor to appoint a successor to finish the remainder of the senator's term. His main concern was that healthcare legislation not be allowed to fail due to his own inability to see it through to passage. Since President Obama and sympathetic Democrats will need every vote they can get, Kennedy wanted to make sure that his "voice" would be heard even in the event of his death. (Presumably Kennedy felt confident that anyone appointed by Governor Deval Patrick would be in tune with his own views.) Massachusetts leaders are now considering the change. In order to blunt criticism, Kennedy had asked that any interim appointee be barred from running for the seat in the next election; legislative leaders are receptive to this idea, but it is unclear whether such a restriction would be constitutional.

While we sympathize with Kennedy's goals, and we, too, want to see healthcare reform pass, we find something distasteful about this proposal. What troubles us is the fact that, as mentioned above, Massachusetts law used to provide the governor with the very powers that Kennedy was asking be restored. You know when the law was changed? 2004. You know why the law was changed? Because Massachusetts Democrats worried that, if Senator John Kerry won the presidency (laugh it up, but it seemed plausible for a few moments), then-Governor Mitt Romney would be able to appoint a partisan Republican to the vacant seat.

In other words, the law was fine as long as it thwarted a Republican appointment. Since it's no longer convenient, the politicians are looking for ways to change the law.

In a way, this is all "inside baseball": It's just politicians playing politics for the sake of political power. Indeed, Senator Kennedy himself--a master politician--would probably appreciate the whole backroom-dealing, smoke-filled room aspect of the whole thing. But we know how we felt when the political polarities were reversed: Anybody remember Bush v. Gore? And look at how well that turned out!

Yes, we know, this is a different situation. Still, we think there should be respect for laws. They shouldn't be enacted for temporary partisan advantage, only to be discarded when the advantage is no longer apparent. And while the political master Kennedy might applaud the maneuvering, we like to think the solidly liberal Kennedy would share some of our qualms.