Very OT, but I was wondering what you think of this proposal.

[Mass]

For a few weeks now, a debate has taken place in MA on whether the MA legislature should change the law that forces a special election in case we lose a senator during his term (for whatever reason).

For those who do not remember, the law was changed in 2004, in order to prevent Romney to appoint a Democrat as replacement for Kerry if he was elected.

These days, we have a Democratic governor, so the temptation is very high in some places to change this law again to avoid a costly and potentially dangerous (from the Democrat POV) and come back to an appointment by the governor.

Though I do not like this idea (we cannot change the law depending of the political color of the governor), I understand why some people want to push that: a special election would be costly for the state, could provoke a short and hardfought primary among Democrats that could be endanger a safe seat, and then the turnout may be limited and the result may be impredictable).

Researching what people had said on this issue, I found this editorial of EOR, and I was wondering whether you would agree it is a bad idea. He is proposing that the governor would select somebody until the next statewide election, that this person would not be able to run after that or to promote somebody else.

Fist, it is difficult for me to understand why, assuming that the replacement is outstanding, we would want to force him not to run. I find even more objectable and pointless to prevent him to promote somebody (what about the first Amendment). I was wondering if somebody had an opinion on this proposal.



http://www.gloucestertimes.com/punews/local_story_317224218.html?keyword=secondarystory

I am proposing that the Massachusetts Legislature pass a bill that gives Gov. Patrick the power to appoint a U.S. senator, if Sen. Kerry gets his wish. Written into the legislation would be the condition that the person getting this appointment would only serve until the next statewide election — approximately two years from now. He or she would not be eligible to run at that time for the U.S. Senate and would be prohibited from promoting another candidate.

[beachmom]

1. Impractical. Who would want to be a Senator for 2 years with no future?

Regardless of how nice it sounds, Mass. would be left with someone who was a lame duck the minute he/she was sworn in. Elections matter, and this Senator would not be held accountable with electoral politics. Bad, bad idea.

Special elections are expensive and a pain, but they are the fairest choice. I know how I felt when Tim Johnson fell ill and it looked like we were going to lose the seat if he could not remain a Senator on account of a Republican governor there. Of course, we probably would have lost the seat anyway with it being a red state, but still.

I think a special election is the way to go, and the second choice is a governor's appointment followed by an election (not sure when). No matter which way you go there are pros and cons.

[Democrafty]

2. I think it is about on par with the rest of EOR's ideas.

First of all, this all seems to be based on the premise that JK spent his Senate campaign running for two positions, which, to my mind, is basically unprovable, as SoS is an appointment. (Compare to Joe Biden, who actually ran for two positions, and won both.)

The continuation of EOR's anti-Kerry agenda might not trouble me so much if I didn't believe that people should absolutely have the opportunity to vote for their representation. EOR had no problem using MA resources when he was campaigning against JK, because he wanted to give people a choice in the primary. Why the change of tune?

And, though it is less important to me than general enfranchisement, I agree that prohibiting a talented senator from trying to get re-elected is both arbitrary and foolish - I mean EIGHT consecutive years of freshman senator in the MA delegation? In the "Seniority is Everything" Club? And this supposes that it's only JK who'd need to be replaced, which, sadly, we know is not really likely.

I also share your confusion about promoting other candidates, and these proposals only reinforce my belief that EOR doesn't really understand the Senate.

[karynnj]

3. I think the Governor appointing is not a bad idea, but the conditions are senseless

I do realize the incumbent will have an advantage, but this would rule out someone constitutionally able to run. That he goes further and even says the incumbent can't endorse someone is ridiculous. (I also doubt he has any insight into JK's "wish". ) I can't imagine someone with less power than a brand new, no seniority already lame duck Senator.

I agree with you that it really shouldn't change because one party has more of an advantage - but appointing someone for the time until the next state wide election would make sense. The idea that a state should lose half its representation for the 4 or so months that could exist between the current Senator leaving and the new one coming in is a problem.

EOR's strange conditions probably reflect his view that he would not be appointed (which is very likely correct) and his delusion that he could win if he didn't have to go against an incumbent. He still has no record other than hating John Kerry and having a successful, but not inspiring law career (You know when people list their college jobs - they have little to run on - and both EOR and Beatty did.)