August 28th, 2009
10:59 AM ET
5 years ago

Dates proposed for Massachusetts special election

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick will decide the date of the special election to fill the Senate seat.
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick will decide the date of the special election to fill the Senate seat.

(CNN) – The special election to fill Massachusetts' vacant Senate seat will be held on either January 19 or January 26, the Massachusetts secretary of state confirms.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick will make the final decision on the exact date.

If a primary is needed that would be held either December 8 if the earlier general election date is chosen or December 15 if the latter one is chosen.

Massachusetts law currently states the special election has to be held between 145 and 160 days after a seat is vacated. Galvin gave his proposal to the governor's office Thursday.


Filed under: Deval Patrick • Massachusetts • Ted Kennedy
soundoff (36 Responses)
  1. David in Alabama

    The Mass. Governor is a true lightweight. He wouldn't let the people of Mass. vote on same sex marriage. He was scared.

    August 28, 2009 11:01 am at 11:01 am |
  2. good idea

    better than picking, as much as I would like someone who would be infavor of the healthcare bill, I think it should be up to the population of Mass. to decide

    August 28, 2009 11:02 am at 11:02 am |
  3. HH

    MItt Romney is not "evil". Though he wishes he was. It would give him some edge. He is a CEO and doesn't want to pay his taxes. He won't be running in 2012 or anytime. He is a product of the Republican machine.

    August 28, 2009 11:08 am at 11:08 am |
  4. Post always rejected by CNN

    I still say it would solve all problems if the governor was allowed to appoint a temporary replacement. Then have a special election at the earliest 5 to 6 months.

    But first, no matter the party that the governor belongs to, he should have to appoint a person from the party that held the seat. If he/she was a republican it has to be a republican. If it is a democrat he/she would have to be a democrat.

    That would stop all the bickering and make it fair to both parties.

    August 28, 2009 11:09 am at 11:09 am |
  5. Kevin in Ohio

    At least he is following this part of the Law as written by the democrats themselves on 2004. ANY attempt to fill this seat in the interim smacks of typical democrat hypocrisy. They would certainly NOT have allowed Mitt Romney to do that in 2004 had John Kerry needed to resign to take office as President. Democrats = Party First, Country second.

    August 28, 2009 11:12 am at 11:12 am |
  6. Not Larry from Oklahoma

    Let the people decide as the landscape has changed. The people of Massachusetts should embrace this opportunity for change. Until then, the seat shoud sit empty as this was Kennedy's law that was put in place to begin under the Romney term as governor. Can't have it both ways!

    August 28, 2009 11:16 am at 11:16 am |
  7. Jimmie

    Expect a bunch of Democrats to jump at the opportunity to run for this seat. I'm predicting candidacies from Attorney General Martha Coakley, Congressmen Ed Markey, Michael Capuano and Stephen Lynch and possibly Joe Kennedy. However, I think a candidacy from Joe Kennedy is unlikely.

    Unfortunately for Republicans, with Mitt Romney's interest geared towards 2012, the Massachusetts GOP doesn't have a bench. The GOP's best recruit would be former Governor Bill Weld, but I doubt he runs. I'm expecting candidacies from 2008 Senate nominee Jeff Beatty and state Senator Scott Brown.

    With Governor Patrick in political peril, it could be closer than expected. However, I'm ranking this race as "Likely Democrat".

    August 28, 2009 11:17 am at 11:17 am |
  8. AU Graduate Student

    I think that is a good idea, but is unlikely to stop bickering. Politics must stop being about politics and focus on the people.

    August 28, 2009 11:18 am at 11:18 am |
  9. John

    I know this might be difficult for democrats to understand, but when you create a law, you have to follow it... Kennedy or not.

    August 28, 2009 11:19 am at 11:19 am |
  10. Jane/Seattle

    This election should be held immediately.

    August 28, 2009 11:19 am at 11:19 am |
  11. barb

    Follow the rules, the one that Ted Kennedy had changed to help his party. He made the change, supported by the Democrate party, now make them go by their own changes.

    August 28, 2009 11:20 am at 11:20 am |
  12. Maria - Proud Democrat

    I hope they do the right thing and honor the special election law.

    After all it was my fellow Democrats who insisted on this law 4 years ago.

    It is going to be an interesting Special Elections, so may the best man or woman win!!!

    August 28, 2009 11:22 am at 11:22 am |
  13. Denis

    I hope the election is much sooner than later!!!!

    August 28, 2009 11:28 am at 11:28 am |
  14. ?QUESTIONEVERYTHING?

    I live in Massachusetts and the problem here in the Commonwealth is the same as anywhere that has one political party with complete control. The politicians changed the law 4 or 5 years ago to suit the situation because there was a Republican Govenor, and now, the Democrats want to change it back again because the situation favors their party. This is just another reason why people dislike both parties. The politicians expect the people to follow the laws, but they themselves walk around acting like the Constitution and laws of the land are written in pencil and can be changed according to their whims. The worst part of this is – we let them.

    August 28, 2009 11:31 am at 11:31 am |
  15. HAWK IN TEXAS

    Respect senator Kennedy. change the law.

    August 28, 2009 11:41 am at 11:41 am |
  16. D. Tree

    The legislature should pass a law allowing the appointment of an interim Senator until the election can be fairly held. Massachusetts deserves representation in Congress this Fall, when many important bills will be voted on. How is it Constitutional for the people of Massachusetts NOT to have representation in Congress?

    August 28, 2009 11:43 am at 11:43 am |
  17. JerseyMike

    i'm glad if this is true they're not trying to circumvent the law. Gov Patrick the nuts on the left will despise you for this but you did the right thing.

    August 28, 2009 11:46 am at 11:46 am |
  18. Jimmy the Greek

    Gosh... what oh what will Obama do now??

    He only has 59 Democratic Senators. Obama can't pass any legislation WITHOUT a super-majority (60).

    That FACT shows how lacking Obama's leadership skills really are!

    August 28, 2009 11:46 am at 11:46 am |
  19. Lynne

    After Bush/Cheney it is hilarious that the Republicans all of a sudden want to follow the law!!!

    August 28, 2009 12:00 pm at 12:00 pm |
  20. just joe

    ...that clears that up, doesn't it gov Patrick? You can appoint an interim Senator until the SPECIAL ELECTION RESULTS ARE IN....no more, no less. Let's stop screwing around with "gotcha" politics.....the people voted for spoke........if you disagree with that, go to Washington yourself......you will learn to be a follower quickly.

    August 28, 2009 12:06 pm at 12:06 pm |
  21. Predicta

    The fact that MA will have no representation didn't seem to bother Teddy when Romney was governor. Looks like Patrick is doing the right thing by the law which Kennedy pushed through. Unfortunately for dems, this will make them one vote short in the Senate.
    Buy-bye HR3200.

    August 28, 2009 12:08 pm at 12:08 pm |
  22. Maria - Proud Democrat

    Gov. Devall Patrick please don't become the next. GOV. BLAGO...

    Do the right thing and hold the special election.

    August 28, 2009 12:11 pm at 12:11 pm |
  23. John - Proud Republican

    Gov. Deval...I hate Palin and McCain. I truely am a republican, but I hate my party. I'm not posing as a republican but really a democrat. That would make me retarded, well...then again...being retarded is what makes me a republican. But I'm proud of it!

    August 28, 2009 12:20 pm at 12:20 pm |
  24. aproudmemberoftheunpatrioticmob

    Poor Massachusetts, looks like more of the same tax and spend liberals will be elected. They had a chance to change but the libs, ACORN and the unions are not going to let them change.

    August 28, 2009 12:21 pm at 12:21 pm |
  25. mjm

    Wow. If only they hadn't changed that law back in 2004 the gov could appiont some one today.

    Who knew?

    If your bill needs 60 votes to be fillabuster proof, your bill is not worth passing.

    Bush never needed 60. Not even for the war.

    August 28, 2009 12:22 pm at 12:22 pm |
1 2