Bill aims to deny appointee Kerry post

[Freddie Stubbs]

By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff | June 23, 2004

The state Senate is expected to consider a bill today that would leave Massachusetts without one of its two US senators for at least four months next year while politicians prepare for a special election to replace John F. Kerry if he wins the presidency.

Common Cause, a public interest watchdog group, and Governor Mitt Romney urged lawmakers yesterday to allow Romney to appoint a temporary seat holder to represent Massachusetts until a special election is held, but Democrats in the Legislature rejected the idea because they fear it would give Republicans a political advantage.

"Particularly, in world today, when you are talking about homeland security, we can't afford to not have the ability to immediately appoint a senator, especially in the event of a catastrophe," Romney said in Washington, D.C., where he was testifying on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Pamela Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause, and Secretary of State William F. Galvin, a Democrat and the state's chief election officer, also have called for lawmakers to allow the installation of a temporary senator during the special process. Both had advocated a six-month election process that would allow a wider field of candidates and accommodate federal requirements such as distributing ballots to military personnel.

more: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/06/23/bill_aims_to_deny_appointee_kerry_post/

[Richardo]

1. How did the usually reliable Massachussetts end up with Romney?

What a dillweed.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. Massachusettes hasn't elected a Democratic governor since 1986

That is hardly reliable.

[Richardo]

9. Ah. Reliable on the federal level then.

Thanks Freddie.

[sui generis]

2. I think that the state governor is overstepping

as usual. It would be extraordinarily wrong to have the governor appoint into an elected position, even "temporarily", and especially because the governor is most clearly NOT nonpartisan.

[Kholst]

4. That is how it's generally done...

Which is why there was a fuss over Lieberman running for senate and VP at the same time. Had he become VP, the (Republican) CT governor would have appointed someone to take his place.

[trotsky]

3. While I personally *want* Mass. Dems to fight this,

I don't think it will do Democrats in general any favors. The governor gets to appoint an interim Senator - it works this way in most (all?) states. If we fight this, we will look like hypocrites the next time the situation is reversed. (Granted, looking like hypocrites never stops the GOP.)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. How will we look like hypocrites?

Unless we're going to argue with a state's lawful right to determine how it will fill its own vacant Senate seat? :wtf: :shrug:

[Killarney]

6. Can someone clear this up for me?

I thought that as the law stands now if Kerry won, Romney would appoint and we would not get to vote until 2006. So, I thought the Dems were fighting for a special election so we wouldn't be stuck with the Romney appointee for two years.

This article makes it out like it's only 4 months. What's the deal?

[welshTerrier2]

7. 4 Months until a special election

i believe the "4 months" would be based on the newly proposed law ...

the new law would remove Romney's right to appoint anybody ... the special election would occur 4 months after Kerry became President ... in the interim, his seat would remain vacant ...

some are pushing to allow Romney, under the new law, to appoint someone for 4 months until the special election occurs ... some feel that would give his appointed "incumbent" an advantage and would prefer that Kerry's Senate seat remain vacant until the special election ...