Left In Lowell

Succession Change Imminent?

24 Responses to “Succession Change Imminent?”

1. The Mark Says:
   August 26th, 2009 at 2:19 pm

   Who DIDN’T see this coming? They should just change the law so that ONLY Democrat Governors are allowed to do this, if a non-Dem is in office they have to actually follow the law on the books. I love changing the rules mid-stream! Here’s a zany idea- why doesn’t the legislature follow the law already on the books. You know the one Sen. Kennedy fought for in 2004.

2. Lynne Says:
   August 26th, 2009 at 3:06 pm

   Wah wah. Whining about it won’t win Republicans any more seats in the legislature. Or at least, it hasn’t so far…

   Fact is, this is totally about strategy. I get it. It’s about the national politics, the 60 seat majority. Yessiree I admit that. However, I would want to keep this law in effect even if some anti-government Governor got the seat. OK?

3. The Mark Says:
   August 26th, 2009 at 3:24 pm

   Sure you would. I’m not complaining at all- but let’s for a moment not let ideology cloud our view on this and call it what it is- BS. I’m not asking for alot here- just follow the rules that are in place much like YOU did with the primary here in Lowell right? You just wanted the rules followed. So were you whining then? Or it’s only whining when someone other then you is asking legit questions in the face of rules being skirted? Hi pot my name is kettle.

4. Paul@01852 Says:
   August 26th, 2009 at 3:51 pm

   The Mark the difference between changing the law of senatorial succession and requesting a waiver from holding a preliminary election is that one is *changing* the law following accepted law-making procedures whereas the other is a “waiver” allowing the city to *break* the law legally! The city could have *changed* the charter regarding election rules but chose *not* to do so but rather to request permission to break it!

5. Lynne Says:
   August 26th, 2009 at 3:51 pm

   Did I say they weren’t legitimate complaints? I thought I just repeated your points and basically backed them up.

   But I’m also stating a political reality. This isn’t going to win the Republicans any seats.

   Also, it’s not inconsistent with my stand on the preliminary. If this proposal in any way eliminated or otherwise made untenable our special election I would be opposing it completely. All this does is add an interim appointment who either won’t be eligible to run in the special election, or will be picked for their commitment to not running. (Would would negate the point of an interim.)

   At a minimum, there is a serious reason not to lose a Senator for 5-6 months. Minnesota lost out on a lot of what it rightly deserved in the handing out of stimulus funds without their second Senator, no matter how junior. Half the reason we have representation is to be sure that our state is represented, after all.

6. Lynne Says:
   August 26th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

   Also what Paul said. Very good point.

   The Republicans will have every chance to lose the Senatorial seat quite democratically in the special election that no matter what, will still be held.

7. Bob Forrant Says:
   August 26th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

   Playing the game - doing this now to go back on a ‘reform’ made so ‘Hairgel Mitt’ could not appoint someone should “Sailboard J Kerry” ascend to me is no more hardball cynical than our local lites derailing a preliminary election. For consistencies sake both maneuvers are OK, are flat wrong, or are how the game of political hardball is played.

   I opt for it is flat wrong - - but I also understand the first rule of political hardball and that is that there are no rules. There’s no crying in baseball and politics gang!

8. Lynne Says:
   August 26th, 2009 at 4:55 pm

   To be honest I’m not pushing for the concept. But they need to decide soon or it’s moot.

   But the political side of me who so desperately wants - no, needs - strong health care reform says, we can’t wait. It would be irresponsible to future generations. (Also, it IS very bad to have six months without a Senator. Ask MN. No really!)

   Republicans are just as much hypocrites for opposing it now anyway…they supported an amendment in 2004 that would have given Mittster temporary appointment powers while waiting for the special election. The Dems opposed it, for the wrong reasons, obviously. I actually think that a law with the temp appointment power and a special election is the best and fairest solution in general (no matter which party is Gov). If this bill was around a year ago I would have no trouble wanting it passed. So now that it’s a political reason for passing it, I should be against it because there’s a political impetus behind it?

9. Parent Says:
   August 26th, 2009 at 7:07 pm

   Why is it that our party gets all introspective about this? If the Republican party were the majority party, they would do whatever benefitted the party simply because they could and do it without apologies! One of the advantages of being the party in power. And republican criticism over this issue will get no traction. Our legislative leaders need to step up to the plate on this!

10. dodo Says:
    August 26th, 2009 at 7:19 pm

    well at least when they schedule the special election in january lowell will have all that money that they saved by not doing a september primary that they can put towards yet another election - ugh. too bad the rule wont let them do the senate election with the city election in november - it would be good fur turnout and it would help the advocates for the new voting system.

11. joe from Lowell Says:
    August 26th, 2009 at 8:44 pm

    Can the law put any teeth into that “suggestion” that the appointed Senator not run for office?

    I mean…what if it’s Marty?

12. joe from Lowell Says:
    August 26th, 2009 at 8:52 pm

    Here’s a zany idea- why doesn’t the legislature follow the law already on the books. You know the one Sen. Kennedy fought for in 2004.

    Of course. Only the law that was put into place to prevent Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican is free of political considerations.

    Since that argument is obviously b.s., the only remaining conclusion is that the people demanding this are, themselves, only concerned with the political strategy - which, in this case, means a determination not to have a full compliment of Senators for Massachusetts.

    But I’m also stating a political reality. This isn’t going to win the Republicans any seats.

    It isn’t about winning seats. It’s about preventing health care from coming to the floor of the Senate. Not even “beating the Democrats on health care.” Making sure there is no up or down vote at all.

    Why is it that our party gets all introspective about this?

    Because we have consciences. Yes, it’s inconvenient. We also get to not go to hell.

13. waittilnextyr Says:
    August 27th, 2009 at 8:45 am

    If the special election is to be held in January, then a primary will likely be held in November of December. If so, let’s have that primary on November 3rd (to save money, of course).

14. Lynne Says:
    August 27th, 2009 at 8:54 am

    The special election rules are governed by a window…Nov 3 would not fall into the window. Once a special is triggered (ie, date of stated resignation or a death), it’s no earlier than 145 days no later than 160, so in this case, the primary window is December 8th through Dec 22 that would be the window.

    I for one would not want to see a special election primary for a Senate seat like this to take place in only 2 months. The window is short enough as it is.

15. Mimi Says:
    August 27th, 2009 at 9:35 am

    Are there any potential candidates that are not already prepared to run? I think a November primary is doable. I am hoping that the Lowell legislative delegation will push to have this primary quickly just as they have to pass a Home Rule petition eliminating the local preliminary election.

16. Paul@01852 Says:
    August 27th, 2009 at 9:54 am

    Since this will be a statewide election, how much financial assistance will the city receive from the state (or Feds for that matter) to cover election costs? I can just hear the Kaziers now whining how much this will cost and should Lowell ask for a waiver since a primary will only eliminate X challengers and how since none of them are from Lowell (if Marty runs he lives now in Andover) it really isn’t such a big deal if Lowell doesn’t participate… yadda, yadda, yadda.

17. Bob Forrant Says:
    August 27th, 2009 at 10:42 am

    In keeping with cost savings and the delegation’s abiding concern for the democratic process prevailing above all else I think the Lowell delegation should approach the governor and simply ask if the delegation can name the new senator themselves. This would save the Commonwealth so much money it isn’t even funny.

    The delegation could host a combination American Idol, So you think you can dance?, America’s Got Talent face-off at Boarding House Park, charge $100 a ticket and I would suggest the three judges could be Tom Brady, Warren Shaw and Mish Michaels. Winner is the new senatah!

18. Paul@01852 Says:
    August 27th, 2009 at 2:02 pm

    Maybe the Mayor could be the MC… he’s good at pointing the finger!

19. joe from Lowell Says:
    August 27th, 2009 at 4:31 pm

    Couldn’t we piggy-back the preliminary election on the special election for senator, and not spent any extra money on it?

    What kind of time-frame are we talking about for both of them?

20. waittilnextyr Says:
    August 27th, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    The time frame for the general election is between 145 and 160 days after the vacancy, so that puts it out in late January, plus or minus a week. The primary for that special election is on the Tuesday 6 weeks prior to the general election. It would take a change by the Legislature to move the primary up to Novemeber 3rd, but they seem willing to make changes to the law, so why not save some money and combine the election dates?

21. dodo Says:
    August 27th, 2009 at 11:14 pm

    primary on 11/3 = more turnout = more opportunity for move lowell forward petition to pass = more chance to unseat the gob = therefore not likely to happen

22. Paul@01852 Says:
    August 28th, 2009 at 6:40 am

    Secretary of State Galvin has determined that the election to replace Sen Kennedy must be held on either Jan 19 or 26. Both dates fall within the 145-160 day window the law mandates and are on a Tuesday which the law also mandates. This means that the primary would be either Dec 8 or 15 depending which date is picked for the final. These dates cannot be changed without changing the law. (Memo to CC Kazangian: there is no means to request a local waiver so the CC will have to find another way to fund that 1/2 a teacher for 1/2 the year to teach to 1/2 a classroom for 1/2 the salary.)

23. Right in Lowell Says:
    August 28th, 2009 at 8:39 am

    LOL Paul… you’ll have to explain it over and over again to cc K before it begins to sink in

24. K-R-S Says:
    August 28th, 2009 at 8:52 am

    RIL & Paul…over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, etc…

Leave a Reply