Legislature overrides Romney veto on appointing Kerry's Senate replacement

[Dems Will Win]

BIG VICTORY FOR THE GOOD GUYS:

Legislature strips Romney of Senate appointment power
By Jennifer Peter, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON -- The Democratic Legislature Friday officially stripped Republican Gov. Mitt Romney of the power to appoint a replacement to John Kerry's Senate seat if the Democrat wins the presidency this fall.

A day after Kerry accepted the nomination at a hometown convention, the House and Senate voted to override Romney's veto of the bill. This was the final action needed for the bill to become law.

Under the new law, there would be a special election for the seat no sooner than 145 days and no later than 160 days after the vacancy occurs. Previously, the governor would have appointed a replacement who would have served until the next general election, which in this case would be 2006.

Republicans accused Democrats of pushing the bill through to help give members of the state's all-Democratic Congressional delegation a leg up in the race for the seat, erasing the possibility that there would be a Republican gaining advantage by serving as Romney's appointee.

More: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/primaries/massachusetts/articles/2004/07/30/legislature_strips_romney_of_senate_appointment_power/

It will be a 99-seat Senate for 145 days hopefully!

[readmylips]

1. Geat!....Go Mass Dems..

I wonder who the Dems will run to replace Kerry? Anybody knows. If it's a secret, don't publish it here.

[2Design]

2. Good I am glad someone is finally fighting back these

domestic terriorists - like Rommney. They need to vote that guy out or impeach him or fire him for sure. He does not have the peoples best interest at heart. He is a rethug and a nasty, bigotted one at that.

[Pallas180]

3. Good for Massachussetts Democrats. At least some have guts!

:bounce:

[Cha]

4. Duh! Yeah the Dems rushed through the law so repubs

wouldn't have the freakin' advantage. Who is the up and coming Dem star in Mass that is going to replace Kerry?

[2Design]

5. Ben Afleck....maybe

[Cha]

8. That would be some jump! But hey, look what happened to

Matt Damon And Ben when they decided to write their own movie cause they weren't being hired and also they had a good story..they won an Academy Award!

[MajorFlaw]

6. Actually, Kerry will still be a senator until he is sworn in as president.

n/t

[Pepperbelly]

7. hardball ... if Delay did this in Texas, we'd be outraged.

But as for me, I have seen the gop do this and more in an effort to trick-fuck every political office that they can. When Delay does it, I am outraged but not because he did it, but because he could.

I am pleased that Massachusetts ground a grimy thumb in Mitt's eye. Good for them.

[Dems Will Win]

9. I think this should be a Federal rule

No more Governor appointments, only Special Elections. It would take a Constitutional Amendment, however.

The people should decide, not the back-room cronies, Republican, Democrat or Independent.

[1monster]

10. No, because the people get to decide who will replace Kerry... not the

politicians. If DeLay did that in Texas, it would be the same.

[booley]

11. let me see if i got this

"Republicans accused Democrats of pushing the bill through to help give members of the state's all-Democratic Congressional delegation a leg up in the race for the seat, erasing the possibility that there would be a Republican gaining advantage by serving as Romney's appointee."

So basicly the repubs are complaining that if the DEM senator (Kerry) gets elected to the Presidency, that his position will be filled by another DEM until the next election when the people get to decide who will represent them again (same as if Kerry didn't become President)

Funny but I thought when a congressperson had to be replaced it was customary to replace them with somebody of the same party anyway. I've seen this with both Repubs and Dems.

It seems that the Dems think there is a good chance that this won't happen. And the repubs are basicly bitching becuase possibly the Dems were right, Romney was goign to try to use a Kerry win to try to sway his state to the repubs and now that trick has been countered.

Am I right? I mean, it's not quite the same as Delay gerrymandering his state in a flouting of rules to make sure on his party could win. If the repubs put a good canidate against Kerry's replacement, they will have thier chance to win that seat.

Am I correct?