Gentlemen,

I am writing, simply, to request that you both reject the proposal heading to the State House floor to amend the state’s US Senate succession law.

Senator Kennedy himself once said to Congress that you do not change the rules in the middle of the game, and ironically, that is precisely what the late senator in his July letter asked Governor Patrick, House Speaker DeLeo, and Senate President Murray to do: change the rules mid-game — this after, in 2004, Mr. Kennedy himself advocated for the law as it currently stands.

While I understand Senator Kennedy wanted to ensure the state’s full representation in the event a health care reform bill came up for a vote — a proposal I generally support, I add — I do not believe that the Legislature should change the law, essentially, to support a single initiative.

Nor do I believe it should support a change that seems to me to be as much about maintaining a Democratic super-majority as serving the public. I always believed the true motivation behind the 2004 changes was to keep Governor Romney — who I did not and still do not care for, to put it mildly — from naming a Republican successor in the event Senator Kerry won the Presidential election. That the Democrats are now embracing a concept the Republicans (unsuccessfully) pitched as an amendment to the 2004 law — giving the governor the authority to appoint an interim Senator — only reinforces this opinion in my mind. As does the latest news I’ve read: that the proposal you may be voting on as early as tomorrow would mandate that any appointees would be of the same party as his or her predecessor.

This is standard in other states, I realize, and is meant to de-politicize such appointments, but in this instance I believe it very much politicizes the process. Mr. Kennedy requested that any appointee offer a personal guarantee that he or she would not run in the special election, specifically to avoid giving that individual an edge in the election. I understand the Legislature does not plan to formally support that request (a good thing as it is, by my understanding, unconstitutional anyway). I wish I could say I could not imagine Governor Patrick appointing, for example, Martha Coakley, as the interim Senator and would instead choose someone with no interest in running for the post, but frankly, my faith in my elected officials’ capacity to conduct business in an above-board manner has been greatly diminished over the past few years.

The argument I’ve heard from proposal supporters is that Massachusetts needs continuous representation in Congress. I cannot support that theory in light of the numerous votes Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Kerry missed because of, respectively, their health issues and Presidential campaign. According to data posted on Govtrack.us, Mr. Kennedy made only nine out of the 270 votes held in 2009 up until his passing. Mr. Kerry missed all but 40 out of 285 votes taken in the 12 months before the election, and missed all 42 votes in the three months immediately preceding the election.

To summarize, I do not believe there is a crucial need to fill Mr. Kennedy’s seat by gubernatorial appointment, nor do I believe that the current effort is geared toward serving the voters. Rather, I see it as making, for the second time in five years, amendments to a law based on current circumstances and a desire to maintain single-party rule. I urge you to fight to keep the law as it is and perhaps revisit the issue when there are no extenuating circumstances that, in perception or in reality, contaminate the noble intentions so many are trying to claim apply to the situation at hand.

Sincerely,

Michael Bailey – unenrolled

In July he sent a letter to Governor Deval Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray, and House Speaker Robert DeLeo asking them to amend state law to allow Patrick to appoint an “interim senator” until a special election could be held to fill the seat semi-permanently (until the next time Kennedy’s seat was up for grabs, which is 2012). Kennedy noted that there is a lot happening in Congress right now — most notably work on health care reform, a topic near and dear to the Senator for many reasons — and Massachusetts needed to maintain a continuity of representation.

Seems reasonable enough, but when you consider that the law was already changed once in the recent past, for reasons one could argue were transparently political, it takes on a whiff of B.S.

In 2004, when US Senator John Kerry was running for President, the Democrat-dominated Legislature pushed through a change to state law that stripped the governor (Mitt Romney at the time) of the authority to appoint a full replacement. They feared that, should Kerry leave the Senate, Romney would appoint a Republican successor. He certainly would have, so the Legislature blocked Romney’s ability to indulge party loyalty by amending the law. They avoided, at least on the surface, the perception that they were also playing at party politics by calling for special elections. That put the choice in the voters’ hands.

Now, Kennedy wants to partially reinstate the governor’s former authority over the matter, and again, the pitch is made in such a way as to present the illusion that it’s all in the name of fairness. By giving the (not so coincidentally Democratic) governor the power to appoint a temporary successor, that leaves the core of the law intact; voters still get to choose who would take over for Kennedy, but in the interim have full representation in Congress. Win-win, yes?

Except that whoever is appointed to that vacancy would ostensibly be someone who wants to hold the seat permanently, and in grabbing the post on an interim basis, that person gains an instant boost to their special election campaign — especially if they are lucky enough to participate in a crucial vote that reaps major benefits for Massachusetts voters.

(EDIT: This is, of course assuming that the governor honors Kennedy’s request to get from the appointee a commitment not to run as a candidate in the special election — a request that is Constitutionally dicey, I must add.)

If the Legislature adopts Kennedy’s requested change, it would be the second time in five years state lawmakers subtly stacked the deck in favor of maintaining a Democratic monopoly in our Congressional delegation.

Enough, people. You gave voters total control over who represents us at the federal level, so leave it there.