Open Senate seat prospect creates State House buzz

BOSTON – Back in 2004 when Mitt Romney was the Republican governor of Massachusetts, a deep concern swept over Democrats in the state Legislature about what might happen if U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry were to vacate his seat to become President of the United States.Fearing Romney would use his gubernatorial powers to fill that seat with a Republican crony, the Democrats quickly moved to change the law, voting to abolish the governor’s authority to pick the Senate seat replacement and instead require a special election.It was all for naught, since Kerry, the Democratic Party’s nominee for President, remained in the U.S. Senate after George W. Bush was elected.All remained quiet until earlier this week, when Barack Obama became President-elect. Obama began the business of choosing his Cabinet members and discussing who might fill other key posts, including Secretary of State.With Kerry’s name bantered about as a candidate for one of those posts, Democrats at the State House once again began talking about the process of filling Kerry’s seat, should he vacate it. The discussion did not overlook the deteriorating health of U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the state’s other senator in Washington, who suffers from a brain tumor.The situation at the State House is opposite that of 2004, with Democrats in control and Deval Patrick, a Democrat, serving as governor.To date, no formal bill has been introduced that seeks to restore the governor’s power to fill vacated U.S. Senate seats in Massachusetts. Nonetheless, state legislators from the North Shore were asked to share their views on the issue.Each was asked if they support restoring the governor’s power to fill vacated Senate seats, or prefer the present legislation that requires a special election.”We should just leave it alone. When the Legislature changed it last time, that was supposed to be a non-partisan vote, and that’s how it should be,” said Rep. Robert Fennell, a Lynn Democrat. “You can’t just keep going back and forth, trying to revert it because it’s better for your party now. I think the special election is the way to go.”Rep. Steve Walsh, a Lynn Democrat, adamantly defended the 2004 vote and the need for an electoral process.”We changed the law in 2004 and I think the motive was about having an election. To me, that’s the right way to pick a United States senator – the elective process,” he said. “There was overwhelming support to do that and I would be hesitant to change back now. I have a lot of respect for Gov. Patrick but I think the electoral process is more than just one person sitting in the corner office.”Walsh said the Legislature made the correct choice four years ago. “Cronyism might have been the original impetus for change, but that doesn’t mean the change wasn’t the right one. Our U.S. Senate seats should be chosen by the voters,” he said.State Sen. Thomas McGee did not rule out the possibility that the law could once again be changed.”There has been plenty of speculation and certainly everyone is interested in what is happening in Washington. And Kerry’s name has been floated. But nobody has approached me about taking another look at the law,” he said. “If that discussion does come up, I’m sure it’ll be looked at honestly. After all, there are states that use the gubernatorial appointment system.”McGee said the people of the commonwealth would ultimately decide the matter if a public discussion is opened.”It’s premature to speculate on this matter, as both Massachusetts Senate seats are currently occupied,” Rep. Lori Ehrlich, whose district includes Swampscott and Marblehead, said through spokesman Tom Mills.If the Legislature takes no action and a U.S. Senate seat is vacated in Massachusetts, a special election would be held 145 to 160 days after the incumbent resigns.Rep. Mark Falzone, whose district includes Saugus, Wakefield and a portion of Lynn, did not return calls Thursday.