Romney veto overridden

In a pair of votes that lacked suspense but not passion, Beacon Hill Democrats yesterday stripped Governor Mitt Romney of his power to choose a replacement for Senator John F. Kerry if the newly-minted Democratic presidential nominee wins the White House.

The vote on the bill, which would establish a special election to fill the Senate vacancy, ends more than six months of wrangling, arguing, and maneuvering over the issue. A number of ambitious Massachusetts Democrats are eager to run for the post if it becomes open, and national Democratic leaders believe that the seat could make a difference in their drive to reclaim the Senate.

Hooting and hollering broke out on the usually staid House floor as Speaker Thomas M. Finneran pushed through the bill yesterday afternoon, the final day of formal legislative business for the year.

"Inevitably, whether it's a Democratic governor or a Republican governor, it's a political deal," Finneran said. "It's very raw politics. Each side was just putting on a little bit of a show for the other side."

Democrats needed a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate to overrule the Republican Romney's veto of their plan to hold the special election in the event of a vacancy. They achieved that total easily, triumphing 120-33 in the House and 30-6 in the Senate.

Yesterday's vote on the bill was the highlight of the day.

But the day also was notable for what didn't happen: Fearing that lawmakers would use it as a vehicle to try to pass a slew of controversial proposals, such as an income-tax cut or a measure promoting stem-cell research, Finneran blocked a vote on a supplemental spending bill backed by Romney and the Senate.

Under the Democratic plan for filling Kerry's seat, the post would remain vacant until a special election is held between 145 and 160 days after he is elected president. The proposal scraps the current system, which gives the governor the power to appoint an interim senator until the next biennial election, which would be in 2006 if Kerry wins this November.

During the House debate, Representative William M. Straus, the Mattapoisett Democrat who chairs the Election Laws Committee, said that overturning Romney's veto would send a message that voters "will decide . . . who will represent you in the United States Senate."

"One person, whoever happens to be the governor at this particular time, will not make the decision for you," Straus said.

Democrats in the Senate offered the same argument.

"We have always felt that this position is significant enough that no one person should make that determination," Senate President Robert E. Travaglini said after the vote in that body. "It should be decided by the people."

But as Finneran acknowledged, the dispute was rooted in politics. Democrats were worried that Romney's choice for interim senator, likely a Republican, would enjoy an incumbent's advantage in the special election. Furthermore, the short campaign would probably benefit two Democratic congressmen, Edward J. Markey of Malden and Martin T. Meehan of Lowell, who have already amassed huge war chests in hope of replacing Kerry.

Middlesex District Attorney Martha Coakley, another Democrat, is also said to be eyeing the seat.

Like the Democrats, Republicans insisted their position had more to do with principle than politics. They focused on the gap in representation that would occur under the Democratic plan.

"I can't understand why anyone would want to leave us unrepresented in the US Senate, at any point in time," said Representative George N. Peterson of Grafton.

Meanwhile, Senator Brian P. Lees of East Longmeadow, the Senate minority leader, joked during the debate in that body that Travaglini had pushed the change because he wants to be rewarded with an ambassadorship if Kerry wins the White House.

As the final phase of the protracted fight over the Senate vacancy bill played out in the open, there was plenty of legislative maneuvering going on behind the scenes. Several months ago, Romney proposed reducing the state income tax rate from 5.3 percent to 5 percent. Democrats immediately dismissed the idea as imprudent. But Republicans, sensing a potent campaign issue for the fall, hoped to force a recorded vote on the issue before the Legislature adjourned.

In 2000, voters approved a gradual reduction of the income tax rate, which was 5.85 percent at the time, to 5 percent. But in the depths of the state's fiscal crisis in 2002, the Legislature froze the rate at the current 5.3 percent. Now that the state's economy is rumbling to life, Republicans say, it's time to follow through with the full tax cut.

Finneran denied that House leaders were reluctant to take up the issue. Peterson said he believed Finneran was concerned about the sudden emergence of several bills, but that the income-tax cut certainly was one of them.

Legislators worked past midnight and were expected to take up the transportation bond bill, which would authorize borrowing $1 billion for transportation projects. The administration decides which projects will advance.