Sen. Ted Kennedy: A Loss for the Nation Should Not Mean a Loss for Democracy

The impressive outpouring of condolences for Sen. Ted Kennedy in the wake of his death this week is remarkable to see. While an unabashed liberal Democrat, Sen. Kennedy came from an older era when Members of Congress actually could get along with one another -- and reach across the aisle to get the nation's business done.

Today's Senate is one of hyperpartisanship, however, with every bill and every public pronouncement providing angles for political advantage or loss, as the tiger of the 24-hour news cycle hungrily waits to be fed with the latest partisan red meat.

In this climate, I was distressed to see last week's letter from Sen. Kennedy's office urging the Massachusetts state legislature to amend its 2004 law requiring special elections for U.S. Senate vacancies and instead return to an appointment for "only" five or six months until the special election could take place.

This change may sound benign, but it's inconceivable that Sen. Kennedy's office would have made this request if the state's governor were a Republican, as had been the case when the special election law was passed in 2004 and when a Republican-sponsored measure to allow temporary appointments was handily defeated in 2006. It's a blatantly partisan request -- one I'm sure Kennedy's camp feels justified in making due to battles in the U.S. Senate and the out-of-control use of the 60-vote filibuster, but still one that further drags democracy down into the stench of partisan gaming of the system. FairVote last Friday issued a news release criticizing the proposal, with hard data showing just how problematic appointments are, and we were gratified to see our arguments picked up by the likes of the editorial page of the New York Times.

In 2005, Sen. Kennedy in fact gave a strong speech in support of preserving the integrity of the process. His speech ironically was given in opposition to weakening of the filibuster rule -- a rule that FairVote criticized as undemocratic in a 2005 report and continues to criticize today. In that speech, however, Sen. Kennedy was absolutely right to say, "The vast majority of Americans' share our commitment to basic fairness. They agree that there must be fair rules, that we should not unilaterally abandon or break those rules in the middle of the game."

It's time to stand up for democracy. Too many major party leaders treat rules governing the electoral process as mere pawns in their drive to gain advantage over their opposition. They act with disdain toward voters, seemingly forgetting that "basic fairness" must be grounded in a democratic process that always puts the voters first.

As the nation honors Sen. Kennedy, I trust his former advisers will drop this effort to revise Massachusetts law in pursuit of short-term partisan advantage. Some of those close to Kennedy seem to know they have to "cover their tracks." For example, from May 2005 to this month, Sen. Kennedy's speech in defense of the filibuster was featured on www.tedkennedy.com, as can be determined through a visit to the Internet archive and Google's Internet cache. Now it is gone, as the senator's arguments are inconvenient in light of this latest partisan maneuver.

Enough. Long-term, standing up for democracy is better politics than seeking short-term advantage through gerrymandering the rules. First, Members of Congress should rally around Russ Feingold and John MccCain's latest collaborative effort to improve democracy through requiring all states to fill Senate vacancies by election, just as been required of U.S. House vacancies since our nation's founding.

Second, to take on the real problem behind the controversy over how to fill Sen. Kennedy's vacancy, Senators should change current filibuster rules. Senators should pledge to change them immediately after the 2010 elections so that Senate minorities can only delay votes to encourage deliberation, not block them permanently -- and threaten to change the rules sooner if the minority is only using the filibuster to require all meaningful legislation to require the votes of a super-majority of 60 Senators rather than a simple majority of 51 votes.

As for Massachusetts, let this brazenly partisan effort go and instead let the voters decide who is fit to step into Sen. Kennedy's very big shoes.

Follow Rob Richie on Twitter: www.twitter.com/FairVote

Comments

[seanparnell]

Excellent post, Rob.

BTW, those arguing that the appointment should be limited to someone from the same party as the person who vacated the office, I'd remind you that we do not elect parties in this country, we elect people. I see no reason that the Governors of Maine and Nebraska should be limited to selecting whomever the state party committee recommends, or any other member of a specific party, should Senators Collins or Nelson leave office prematurely.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org

[holden125]

You worry about process. I'm worried about health care and every other thing we're trying to get through. We need 60 votes and I did not wait 35 years for this political moment to have goo-goos lecture on process while the GOP filibusters every single bill put forward. I do not care one whit what means are used to make sure we have (at least in theory) that 60th vote. I will not stand for the GOP obstructionists having their way on healthcare for another 20 years just because Teddy passed. As a native of Massachusetts, I can tell you that there is no way in hell the people of my state would ever vote in a Senator who didn't support the public option, or who wouldn't vote for cloture. Massachusetts deserves, and the country needs, two votes. Let them amend the law to allow for a gubernatorial appointee who comes from the same party as the departing senator and who is not eligible to be on the ballot in the special election. That gives the state two seats and prevents the "Romney-ap­pointing-a­-Republica­n" problem. If the Commonwealth ever again elects a GOP senator, the GOP would be likewise protected against a Dem. governor appointing a Dem.

[Rob Richie - Huffpost Blogger]

Instead of an undemocratic powegrab in Massachusetts -- one that is totally contextual, as there is no way the legislature would do this if the governor were a Repupblican -- my answer is to take on a real enemy of democracy: the filibuster. Filibsuters should be used to force more deliberation, but not to stop majorities from passing laws.

[holden125]

Agree completely on the filibuster, but it's not going to happen in the next three months. After seeing years of naked GOP power grabs, not least the outright theft of the White House in 2000, I'm in no mood to start observing niceties now. Again, substance over process. It is ironic because Ted Kennedy only got his seat, and RFK his position as AG and consequently his Senate seat, because of exactly the type of partisan Democratic power grab, or nepotism, that flourished in Massachusetts for decades. Say what you will about its abuses from a process standpoint, but that system still helped plenty of people. At this critical juncture I see no advantage to Massachusetts being stuck with one Senator while meaningful health care reform, and plenty of other things, fail for want of a vote or two. The GOP redistricted midway through a decade in Texas and Colorado, and the Democrats can do this in Massachusetts. If the people don't like it, they'll vote for Republicans in Massachusetts.

[Catothemuchyounger]

What a joke it will be if they change it back! Who replaces Senate vacancies from Massachusetts? Whoever the legislature decides based on the political needs of the moment. You watch. They will change it back again if a Republican gets in. They cannot even maintain a pretense that they are acting on principle here.

[Rob Richie - Huffpost Blogger]

Exactly. And with Gov. Patrick facing a tough re-election bid, the legislature then will talk about reverting the law again. Very messy.

[beyondthepale9779]

Ted Kennedy pushed hard for the change to the current system in 2004. So this current partisan move should come as no surprise to anyone. Kennedy didn't want the filibuster weakened because as someone with many years in the Senate he knew there would again be a time that the Dems would be in a position where they would need to use it.