To the editor:
With the speculation growing that John Kerry is headed toward a post in the Obama administration, attention has turned to the process by which Massachusetts will fill the spot vacated by its junior senator. This is a process in which the citizens of the commonwealth should have a high level of interest.
During the election cycle just completed, Massachusetts ranked dead last in the percentage of voters who had a choice as to who represents them at the Statehouse.
Just 17 percent of Bay State voters had a choice for representation in the General Court, as there were over 140 uncontested races between the two chambers. And although one was contested in this past election, there has not been an open U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts in nearly 25 years.
It is time for the citizens of Massachusetts, who turned out in record numbers for this election despite the lack of competitive races, to have more choices in who represents them in government.
Under current Massachusetts law, a special election and not a gubernatorial appointment would be required to fill a vacated Senate seat — something that was changed to avoid having then-governor Mitt Romney appoint a fellow Republican in the event Kerry had won the 2004 presidential election. However, speculation is growing that Patrick and the Legislature might rewrite the rules to return to appointment over election — partly due to the "cost" associated with a special election and partly (or perhaps mostly) because it is more palatable politically with a Democratic governor in control.
The citizens of Massachusetts should contact their representatives on Beacon Hill and insist that they not support a return to gubernatorial appointment.
The "cost" issue is not enough to justify taking the selection of a new senator out of the hands of the people and returning it to a back-room, insider process.
After deciding, for political reasons, in 2004 that the voters should choose a new senator, for the General Court to then decide, for different political reasons, four years later, that they should not, is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical at best, and a complete and transparent breach of public trust at worst.
Elections may be costly and complicated, and special elections even more so; but this state needs more elections, not fewer, to ensure the best government and representation possible on both Beacon Hill and in Washington. If the state can justify not having one election because of the cost and complications involved, you're on your way to being able to say that maybe it would be easier if we skipped all of the elections and just have someone appoint all public office-holders.
With these things in mind, I urge all citizens to do two things:
1.) Contact your state representative and state senator today and demand that they uphold the ideal that the people and not the politicians decide who fills public offices.
2.) Contact your town or city clerk and indicate your willingness to volunteer as a poll worker in the event of a special election to ensure that polling places can be adequately staffed.
I also call on those groups like the League of Women Voters, who strive to protect voter rights and expand voter access, to use their influence to do the same.
We already have enough back-room, insider dealing in this state's government without settling our elections that way too.
Brett Schetzsle
Beverly
(Editor's note: For contact information for local legislators go to www.salemnews.com/tocontact).


