With the possibility of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) moving from Capitol Hill to the White House next year, it should come as no surprise that state legislators have introduced a bill suggesting that the commonwealth determine who should fill his vacated Senate seat. As it stands, that responsibility would fall to the state’s Republican governor, Mitt Romney, and Massachusetts citizens would decide on a permanent replacement at the end of that congressional session – in this case, 2006. But if all goes as Rep. William Straus (D-Bristol), the bill’s sponsor, hopes, a special election could be held much earlier, placing the fate of the seat in the hands of the people. While Straus claims he suggested the bill more than two years ago without intending for it to correlate with Kerry’s decision to run for president, the bill has come under heavy fire as being a political move by the Democrats to keep Romney from naming a Republican to Kerry’s seat.
His idea seems to make sense. A new senator should be elected as soon as possible by the very people he or she will represent, and not just by the governor who happens to be serving at that moment. Having a state official appoint someone to serve in a federal office is highly impractical.
This antiquated aspect of the commonwealth’s constitution should be changed. The amendment is the right thing to do regardless of the possibility that Kerry could be the first to use it. Indeed, in an ideal world, the bill would have been brought up at a time when it would not directly affect Massachusetts Democrats. While the impulse to make such a change often does come from a current issue that sparks controversy, there must be sound reasoning behind changing the law itself. But in this case, there seems to be a strong argument for it. Who can argue with letting the people decide?
If the Democrats decide to take the high road and suggest the proposed change not go into effect until the next circumstance comes into play, the bill would likely pass with much greater ease. But if the bill passes, it would be in the best interest of the people to allow them to take immediate action.
The proposed change can easily be seen as a political issue, but it should not be made into one. Instead of fighting over which party controls the fate of a vacated seat, the interest of the people being represented must be kept as the most important issue. Romney himself should step away from his party lines and consider whether the proposed change is in the best interest of the people – the same people he himself represents. This country was founded on the concept of democracy and the idea that the people elect their representatives. This change will allow that democratic process to take place.