I begin my first column by commenting on the very real change experienced by the Commonwealth on August 25, 2009. It is a transformation that is being felt, to no small degree, both in our nation’s Capitol and under the Golden Dome of the State House. This sad occasion is the passing of the longest serving Senator we have ever had in Massachusetts. I would like to extend my deepest condolences to the entire Kennedy family.
As we continue to mourn the passing of Senator Kennedy, a political firestorm that had been slowly brewing is now engulfing Massachusetts politics. We face the need to fill a vacant U.S. Senate seat; fortunately for us, we have very specific laws to guide us along the way. The problem is that there are some in the majority party who wish to see the laws changed to accommodate their partisan political agenda. In 2004, the state legislature completely altered the process for filling a U.S. senatorial vacancy in Massachusetts. One of the leading advocates of this law change was Senator Kennedy. The new law took away the ability of the Governor to make an appointment to a Senate seat should there be a vacancy between elections. The impetus for this legislation was the fact that the Governor was Mitt Romney, a Republican, and that our other U.S. Senator, John Kerry, a Democrat, was running for President. The Democratic legislature acted to remove the Governor’s appointment power so that he could not appoint a Republican to the Kerry Senate seat should Kerry have won the 2004 presidential election.
Today, some in the Democratic Party, the party with an overwhelming majority in the legislature in 2004 and in 2009, once again want to flip flop and reverse the law that they passed because there is now a Democratic Governor, Deval Patrick. If this proposed partisan political maneuver is successful, it will play into the popular perception that the Massachusetts political process is corrupt and self-interested. In 2004, the Democratic Party acted to change the rule of law half-way through the process. Now in 2009, they are proposing to change the law again based on a specific circumstance to suit their political agenda and to ensure that they have enough votes in the Senate to pass President Obama’s health care reform legislation.
Even though I agree that it is not ideal for the state to have a senatorial vacancy for any extended period of time, it is even more important not to allow any person or party to manipulate the law and the legislative process time and time again to suit narrow partisan objectives. For that reason, I oppose any legislation being offered to reestablish the power of the Governor to make an interim appointment to the position of U.S. Senator. I believe it is appropriate to follow the law that is in place, which the Democrats championed in 2004, which requires a special election to fill the Senate vacancy. The date for that special election has been set for January 19, 2010.
However, once the election has been held and the Senate vacancy has been filled, I support a meaningful bipartisan discussion on the law pertaining to any future Senate vacancies. I believe that we should consider allowing the law to return back to its original form and permanently restore the power of the Governor, whether Democrat or Republican, to make interim appointments. Many other states have similar provisions that allow for gubernatorial appointments to fill Senate and Congressional vacancies.
This flip-flopping over the process to fill the U.S. Senate seat is another situation where it is critical to stand against allowing partisan politics to determine the course of constitutional matters. We in the Republican minority are committed to remaining a voice advocating for a “good government” alternative to politics as usual. As John Adams said in 1780, “We are a government of laws and not of men…” All laws should apply to everyone and every situation equally, no matter which political party is in control or which interest stands to benefit.
