Legal News

Ted Kennedy?s Succession Plan: The NYT Comes Out Against It

By Ashby Jones

It’s not every day that the writers of the New York Times’s daily editorials see eye-to-eye with the writers of the Wall Street Journal’s daily takes on the world. So when they do, well, the very fact alone is probably worth a mention. But when the topic lies at the intersection of law and politics, well, we’ve got to clear out some room for it.

The issue: the plan offered up by the terminally ill Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), to change the way his potential replacement is chosen after his death. Right now, when a Massachusetts senator dies or becomes incapacitated while in office, his or her replacement is chosen by an election. Kennedy has urged the Massachusetts state legislature to change the law so that an interim replacement is picked by the governor, one that would serve pending the election. With the health-care debate likely to come to a vote in the not-so-distant future, Kennedy would like to assure that, in the event that he dies, the interim seat stays with a Democrat.

Last week, the Journal’s op-ed writers ripped the plan:

What Mr. Kennedy doesn’t volunteer is that he orchestrated the 2004 succession law revision that now requires a special election, and for similarly partisan reasons. John Kerry, the other Senator from the state, was running for President in 2004, and Mr. Kennedy wanted the law changed so the Republican Governor at the time, Mitt Romney, could not name Mr. Kerry’s replacement. “Prodded by a personal appeal from Senator Edward M. Kennedy,” reported the Boston Globe in 2004, “Democratic legislative leaders have agreed to take up a stalled bill creating a special election process to replace U.S. Senator John F. Kerry if he wins the presidency.” Now that the state has a Democratic Governor, Mr. Kennedy wants to revert to gubernatorial appointments.

It took a few days for the NYT to join the Journal, but today, it did. Reads the NYT:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy has asked the Massachusetts Legislature to change state law to let the governor, currently a fellow Democrat, fill vacant Senate seats. Abandoning the current system, in which voters choose, would be undemocratic, even at the request of such a respected lawmaker.

LBers, any thoughts? The Times and Journal also agree on the takeaway here: that given the recent problems that plagued the processes to replace Hillary Clinton in New York and, to a much greater degree, Barack Obama in Illinois, it might be best for Congress to pass a law ridding all the states of any replacement procedure that isn’t an election.

Clarification: An earlier version of this post failed to clarify that Kennedy’s proposal would only apply to the appointment of an interim senator. Thanks to reader Gordon Hardy for pointing out the error.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on August 25, 2009 (boomark / email).