Posted on 09/18/2009 9:33:34 AM PDT by jacjmm
Hello,
I’m writing to update you on the vote that the House of Representatives took last night to allow the Governor to make an interim appointment until a special election can be held to fill a vacant U.S. Senate seat.
I want to first thank you for calling or emailing me with your opinion on this important issue. I received feedback from more than 190 constituents, and I assure you that I carefully considered each person’s comments. I understand the strong feelings on both sides of this issue. I spent many hours evaluating the arguments for and against an interim appointment, as well as considering both the near-term and longer-term ramifications.
Election laws should never be changed merely for political advantage or so frequently that they cause confusion. The specific context for this decision -- with the memory still fresh of the last change to our election laws in 2004; the request from Senator Kennedy to make this change shortly before his death; and the heated debate surrounding healthcare reform in Washington -- made it inevitable and understandable that charges of partisanship and hypocrisy would be raised.
I made the decision to support an interim appointment because I believe this is the soundest public policy, now and in the future. This should be the sole basis for deciding any issue that comes before the legislature.
Prior to 2004, when a Senate vacancy occurred, the Governor would appoint somebody to serve out the remainder of the term, which could be many years. In 2004, the law was changed to require a special election within 145-160 days. I think most people, regardless of their political views, would agree that a vacancy should be filled by an election. Elections are the hallmark of a democracy and are the best way for us to hold our elected officials accountable.
However, when the legislature made this change in 2004, it did not adopt an interim appointment provision for the five month period when the seat would sit vacant until the special election. This was a mistake. Of the states that call for a special election to fill a vacant Senate seat, more than 75% (including California, Texas, New Jersey, and Vermont) also give the Governor the power to make an interim appointment so the seat never sits empty. Massachusetts should have done the same in 2004.
The people of Massachusetts are not well served by a vacant Senate seat for any length of time. The duties of a Senator are too significant. In addition to important policy matters and spending decisions that impact billions of dollars in federal funding, the Senate provides advice and consent on judicial appointments and treaties. Senators and their staff also provide critical constituent services. I know from firsthand experience how Senator Kennedy’s office helped many people in need.
Although the legislature could not restrict the temporary appointee from running in the special election (since this is believed to be unconstitutional), the House passed a resolution stating its strong conviction that any interim appointee, now and in the future, would pledge not to be a candidate in the special election.
I understand that some people will be angry at this decision and will ascribe only political motives. My decision, however, was based on what I believe to be the best public policy. This is the same position taken by Common Cause Massachusetts, a nonpartisan, nonprofit government watchdog, dedicated to open, honest, and accountable government. The law adopted in 2004 was an improvement over prior law because it gave the people of Massachusetts the power to elect their Senator. It fell short because it failed to give our citizens a voice in the Senate during the period leading up to the special election. Adopting a temporary appointment now, and for all future vacancies, along with a special election, rectifies past mistakes and gives the people of Massachusetts the representation that they need and deserve in the U.S. Senate.
Thank you very much again for contacting me on this issue.
Best wishes,
Jason
Jason Lewis State Representative 31st Middlesex District - Stoneham and Winchester State House, Room 33 Boston, MA 02133 617 722-2060 Jason.Lewis@state.ma.us www.RepJasonLewis.com
Power hungry crooks and liars, it’s all that Democrats are.
Do you eat with that mouth?
Was this guy a state rep in 2004?
If so, did he vote to change the succession law back then?
As far as I'm concerned, if you voted for it back then and vote for it now, you are a hypocrite and don't deserve to be in office.
Banana republic legislature.
Even those of us among the great unwashed, out here in flyover country know why the DhimmiRats changed this silly little law... The folks in MA may not, but we do.
The LibTards continue to push the height of arrogance and elitism. It’s sickening.
After having all that smoke blown up your butt, you are now capable of farting smoke rings.
The law should not be changed to retoractively apply. If they want to change it for “next time” let them pass such legislation. The current law was in effect when the opening came available, and it is the one that should be honored. If the house passed a law lowering the speed limit to 55 shoudl everyone who drove 65 in the past 90 days get a ticket? (oh crap I hope no liberal revenue swine reads this and proposes it)
You’re lucky. Senator Gallucio and Rep. Toomey have yet to respond to my three questions which were:
1. What’s another 5 months after Kennedy’s absence on 97% of votes in the 18 months since he was diagnosed and died. If this was really about representation he should have stepped down last May. Yes or No?
2. Would this even be an issue if Kerry Healy beat Deval? If Kennedy wrote the letter to Healy (Highly doubtful)would you still vote for it?
3. Since this is all happening after Kennedy’s death doesn’t this make the law ex post facto? I don’t think our Constitution likes that very much.
Now I am more conservative than liberal but I am not a huge fan of the repubs even though that is the way I usually vote. At least Repubs aren’t outto destroy the country. This whole deal is just flat out dirty. There is nothing else that I can say about it other than dirty.
NEVER VOTE RAT....THEY ARE EVIL....
I don’t understand why the Mass. legislature doesn’t just pass a law that says “only Democrats may be appointed to open seats.” Why not? That’s clearly the intent.
The people of Massachusetts are not well served...
Not sure if any others on here are from Mass but it is so depressing to go into the voting booth and have nothing but unopposed Democrat incumbents to “choose”. 90% of the time I am writing people in as a form of protest I guess. If you want to call protesting.
The law should not be changed to retoractively applyWhatever happened to that "No Ex-Post-Facto Laws" thingy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.