This kind of thing is supposed to happen in Venezuela, not in the United States.
The Democratic majority in the Massachusetts legislature is seriously considering rewriting election law for its own political gain. And it will have national repercussions.
I’d expect this from Hugo Chavez and his lapdop National Assembly, which repealed term limits on the autocratic president and recently altered voting districts that critics charge will ensure future election victories. It’s appalling that any legislature in the United States would similarly considering altering election laws for the sole purpose of gaining a strategic political advantage.
In Massachusetts, the Legislature is considering a bill to allow Democrat Governor Deval Patrick to appoint an interim senator to fill the vacancy of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy. This would ensure a Kennedy acolyte blocks any filibusters by maintaining the Senate Democrats’ 60-vote advantage and gives Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a guaranteed ally on national health care reform this fall.
This issue is not whether a gubernatorial appointment is a better option than a special election for filling a Senate vacancy. It’s not about how long an interim Senator would serve before an election is held. Both proposals have pros and cons.
As I see it, there are two issues. First, should the voters of Massachusetts expect, and accept, that whenever it suits the self-interest of the Democrat Party, the Legislature will change election laws? Second, should the nation tolerate Reid and others pressuring Massachusetts Democrat lawmakers into changing state law so no Senate Democrats can force through an unpopular health care bill?
In both instances, the clear answer is no.
Democrats created this issue for themselves in 2004, when they actually thought John Kerry would win the White House. At that time, a U.S. Senate vacancy was filled by gubernatorial appointment, so a Kerry victory would hand Republican Mitt Romney a chance to select the next U.S. Senator, in all likelihood a Republican. It would have been a bitter irony for Massachusetts Democrats to see their favored son become President only to be replaced by a Republican. (Incidentally, the last Republican U.S. Senator from Massachusetts was Edward Brooke, the first African-American elected to the Senate by a popular vote, in 1966.)
With Kerry on the verge of victory, then-Senate Minority Leader Reid and Kennedy, Massachusetts’ senior senator, called for immediate action. Change state law. Let the voters decide. Do not let Romney pick a Republican. Scrap the gubernatorial appointment process. Enact a special election.
And so it was done.
It was a blatantly political move at the time, and a reversal would be blatantly political now.
No majority party, Democrat or Republican, should be allowed to rewrite the law for purely self-serving interests. As a lawyer and as Chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party, I find appalling the level of disrespect Democrats are showing the people from whom government derives its power and responsibility.
To change the law for the second time in five years, merely to suit the Democrats’ political whims is an assault on democracy and an affront to the voters of Massachusetts.
******
Jennifer A. Nassour is Chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party, online at www.massgop.com.
Loading ...
I agree, If this is allowed it will go on in every state, oh well we need to pass this heath care plan so put someone in that seat now but make sure it is someone that will give us our votes. How scary is that, we need to have more people aware of what is really going on in this country how do we do that before it is too late?
thanks,
lorraine ameri
THE WHole situation on Massachusetts is very disturbing. Do they think they can change laws at will. If they can, the rest of the country will try to sollow suit. Anarchy. Our laws are for the protection of the city, state and federal government. Don’t let them get away with this self sustaining action.