Copied from New York Times
The death of Edward M. Kennedy immediately raises the question of who will succeed him in the Senate — and how quickly — as Congress is embroiled in a bitter battle over plans to overhaul the nation’s health care system.
Multimedia
Blog
The Caucus
The latest on President Obama, the new administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.
Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts.
One of Senator Kennedy’s last public acts before he died on Tuesday was an emotional plea to Massachusetts state lawmakers that they replace him quickly upon his death. Though he did not cite any issues specifically, his note was viewed as an acknowledgment that his absence would leave uncertain not only the identity of his replacement, but also the essence and fate of health care reform, his most cherished legislative goal.
In the letter, dated July 2, Mr. Kennedy asked lawmakers to amend the state’s rules and grant the governor the power to appoint his successor until a special election could be held.
“It is vital for this Commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and a special election,” he wrote.
While Massachusetts voters would probably vote in another Democratic senator, any delays caused by a special election could hinder efforts by the party to corral the 60 votes needed in the United States Senate to move health care legislation forward.
But the effort to find a quick replacement for Mr. Kennedy may prove complicated. In the week before his death, reaction in Boston to his request ranged from muted to hostile. The state’s Democrats found themselves in the awkward position of being asked to reverse their own 2004 initiative calling for special elections in such instances.
Until that year, Massachusetts law had called for the governor to appoint a temporary replacement if a Senate seat became vacant. But when Senator John Kerry, a Democrat, was running for president in 2004, the Democrat-controlled State Legislature wanted to deny the governor at the time — Mitt Romney, a Republican — the power to name a successor if Mr. Kerry won. The resulting law requires a special election within 145 to 160 days after the vacancy occurs.
“The hypocrisy is astounding,” the state House minority leader, Bradley H. Jones Jr., told The Boston Globe on Thursday. “If we had a Republican governor right now, would we be getting the same letter?”
In an interview Wednesday morning with WBZ News Radio in Boston, Gov.Deval Patrick signaled that he was in favor of granting Senator Kennedy’s request to change state law and allow Mr. Patrick to appoint a temporary successor until a special election can take place.
“I believe that the senator’s request to permit the governor to appoint someone to serve for the five months between now and that special election is eminently reasonable and, I think, especially timely when you consider the momentous proposals in front of the Congress right now around health care reform and climate change and so forth,” Mr. Patrick said. “Massachusetts needs two voices in the United States Senate.”
He added: “But having said that, now is the time for us to reflect on the senator s life and contributions and to pray for the comfort of his wife, Vicki, and their family. We’ll turn to succession in due time."
Even if Mr. Kennedy’s death prompts a change of heart, the State Legislature is not set to return until after Labor Day.
In the United States Senate, Mr. Kennedy’s absence had been felt for months before his death as he underwent treatment for a malignant brain tumor at his home in Cape Cod. As deliberations began on a major health overhaul effort — an issue Mr. Kennedy called “the cause of my life” — he had to hand off day-to-day oversight of the health committee to a close friend, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut.
Despite his reputation as an unapologetic liberal, Mr. Kennedy was known inside the Senate as a master of negotiation, and senators were divided over whether the ultimate bill would be more — or less — bipartisan if he had been around to shepherd it through. Mr. Dodd, who moved a version out of the Health Committee, said he stayed true to Mr. Kennedy’s convictions.
Others disagree.
“It is a very one-sided, very liberal bill,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah. “I know that Ted would not have done that had he been able to be here.”
Because of their struggles pushing the health care overhaul forward, Democrats have increasingly been considering using a process called “reconciliation” to advance the legislation with just a simple majority, rather than 60 votes. With Mr. Kennedy gone and Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia also in poor health, such a maneuver seems even more likely.
Several people, inside the family and beyond, have been discussed as possible candidates to take Mr. Kennedy’s place in the Senate.
In the letter discussing his successor, Mr. Kennedy said the appointee should offer the “explicit, personal commitment” not to run for the seat in the special election. His wife, confidant and policy adviser, Vicki Kennedy, has been subject of speculation in the state as a possible successor, though she said before his death that she was not interested.
Other family members seen as possible heirs include his nephew, former RepresentativeJoseph P. Kennedy II, who has $2 million in leftover campaign funds. Mr. Kennedy has expressed reluctance to return to politics but has not closed the door on the possibility. Senator Kennedy’s sons, Edward M. Kennedy Jr. and Representative Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode Island, have also been mentioned.
Outside the family, there is a stable of high-profile Massachusetts Democrats considered possible successors, including state Attorney General Martha Coakley and former Representative Martin Meehan, who retired to become chancellor of the University of Massachusetts-Lowell last year, but who has about $4.8 million in campaign cash left.
