Harry Reid Wants Appointment Law Changed to Fill Kennedy Seat

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has officially declared his support for changing current Massachusetts law in order to quickly fill Sen. Ted Kennedy's vacated seat. As I wrote a few days back, an ailing Kennedy penned a letter urging Massachusetts lawmakers and Gov. Duval Patrick to amend the process that had last been changed in 2004. Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley, described the majority leader's rationale:

While it is ultimately up to the people of Massachusetts and their representatives at the State House to decide this matter, Senator Reid agrees with Senator Kennedy and Gov. Patrick that the law should be changed. With so many important matters to be decided, the people of the Commonwealth need two Senators to represent Massachusetts until the special election.

Reid has consulted with Patrick on changing the law so that Democrats will be assured of another all-important vote for the health care reform that was so close to Kennedy's heart.

Ironically, this last-minute tinkering with the law mirrors one of the more hotly debated provisions in the health care plan: end-of-life directives. Bear with me. You see, as most doctors will tell you, the time to make end-of-life plans is well before you find yourself in the heat of the moment, when one's principles can be clouded by emotions. The same is true in politics. The time to take a measured stand on an issue -- be it amending laws on succession or on the gerrymandering of congressional districts -- is not when that particular issue is at the center of a political storm.

So, while I applaud the goals of health care reform, the "by-any-convenient-means-necessary" approach is not the way to go. That shoe has been on the other foot too many times. We've seen overriding ethics sacrificed for momentary political victory too many times. (Florida 2000, anyone?) Sure, it would be damn near impossible to step back and assess the merits of each and every law on the books and weed out the bad from the good, but it's clear that Massachusetts amended its laws to suit a political party in 2004. It shouldn't be allowed to do so again in 2009.