There seems to be a groundswell in Massachusetts in favor of altering the state's current arrangements for replacing a dead Senator (special election in six months) to permit a quick replacement (appointing an interim successor).
The special-election arrangement has only existed a few years, rushed into law to head off the possibility that then-Governor (Republican) Mitt Romney might get the opportunity to name a successor to John Kerry if he won the Presidency. Well, that didn't materialize. So as we know, Ted Kennedy himself suggested, shortly before he died, that the state change back to the old system, allowing the Governor to appoint someone so that the people of Massachusetts wouldn't lack representation for such a long time. Not surprisingly, the Governor has now endorsed the idea, and Massachusetts is at least 105% Democratic, so -- unless something really unexpected occurs during public hearings on the issue September 9, it seems a foregone conclusion.
Republicans have decried the trend as politically motivated; they say that Democrats just want to have their cake and eat it too. But let's be honest, if the same thing were happening in Utah or some other strongly Republican state, they'd be all for it. And let's not forget that Republicans got really bored with FDR winning reelection to a fourth term as President, so once they got their cake, they not only ate it, but enshrined it in the Constitution - the two-term limit became the Twenty-Second Amendment. In short, forget the political argument, it's irrelevant. So while we might hope that politicians, having made a bed, would lie in it, realism reminds us how election districts are constantly being regerrymandered, and those who saw no problem with deficits in 2008 are rabidly against them in 2009.
Personally, I think appointment of a temporary successor, which has been the norm in most states, makes a lot of sense. It's practical, it avoids a long hiatus during which the people of a state are unrepresented, it permits time to sort out potential candidates and set up an election; it generally tends to preserve whatever political balance voters have achieved, both in the Senate or House, and in the state.
But it does depend on honorable behavior by governors (hey, stop laughing, now!). Would a Republican (like Mitt Romney) who managed to get elected in a state (like Massachusetts) where a huge majority vote Democratic be crass enough to appoint a Republican to fill a Democrat's seat? And what happens when the situation is less clear-cut (a close split between the two parties, as there is in Virginia), or if the appointed successor is a hack rather than a star? There's the rub. That's why some states have decided that elections, despite their delays and their cost, are better - and certainly more democratic. There's no single "right" solution; it depends on circumstances.
Fortunately, one advantage of our federalist system is that we have a lot of "laboratories of democracy" in which various solutions can be tried out. Having set up an election-based succession policy, I'd like to see them stick with it (and they would likely find out that a six-month delay is too long; why not three months?) In the end, though, Massachusetts's political leaders will need to come up with their own solution, and the rest of us should butt out and watch with interest what they do.
And this just in: About six hours after posting the above, I coincidentally watched the old classic flick Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, where a naive young fellow is appointed to fill a Senate term from his state. In accepting, Jimmy Stewart promises "not to do anything to shame the office of U.S. Senator" (or words to that effect). That's a nice standard, and perhaps the best we should hope for.
Comments