Segregation in the "Shallow North"

But don't assume it's a conclave of “Tea Party” protestors secretly meeting in the dead of night so as to exclude anyone of dissimilar WASP heritage. No, these good folks meet in the halls of the Massachusetts State Legislature during session so as to alter state law with the intent of discriminating against those of dissimilar political persuasion.

Molly Line, FOXNews.com, Sept. 17th , 2009

The Massachusetts House voted late Thursday to change state law to give Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick the power to appoint a temporary successor to the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy until a special election is held early next year.

The vote has drawn controversy because a 2004 change in the law stripped then Republican Gov. Mitt Romney of the power to appoint a successor if Democratic Sen. John Kerry would have won the presidency. (emphasis added)

So why would the democratic Massachusetts legislature want to change the law in 2004 when Romney was Governor?

JOHN HECHINGER and PHILIP SHISHKIN, WSJ, August 28, 2009
Proponents of changing the law (in 2004) argued that a gubernatorial appointment was undemocratic and that only voters should decide on a replacement. Democrats also feared Mr. Romney would appoint a Republican. (emphasis added)

OK, so an appointment would be undemocratic. But what motivation would they have for changing it back now?

AP, MSNBC, Sept. 20, 2009

"Some people say it's political. Of course it's political," said Rep. Cory Atkins, a Concord Democrat and Kennedy supporter.

For some reason calling such a move “Political” doesn't express the total lack of respect these “Civil Servants” have for the rule of law. I have to stand in agreement with Rep. Barney Frank from Massachusetts when he said recently:

"Public policy questions important to everyone in America shouldn't be decided by a tragedy of death or some other non-electoral factor,"

And an appointment is a “non-electoral factor.”

To make matters worse, Massachusetts House Speaker Robert DeLeo told the AP that lawmakers wanted to bar any appointee from also running as a candidate in the special election, but said they could not constitutionally include that provision in the bill. He said House lawmakers instead hoped to pass a separate resolution stating that it is the intention of the House that an appointee not also be a candidate in the special election. That is important if you want the appointee to be willing to vote against his constituents without the fear of not being elected. Effectively nullifying any representation they might have gotten from him.

So who would this appointee be representing?

The same AP article points out that “Obama presidential counselor David Axelrod has contacted Massachusetts officials and the Massachusetts branch of Obama's political arm, Organizing for America, has sent out e-mails advocating for the change.”

Segregation may be gone from the “Deep South”, but it's alive and well in the “Shallow North”.