When Obama vacated his senate seat, the law in Illinois allowed for the Governor to appoint his successor. This was OK with the Democrats, until Blagoyevich was exposed in the "Senate Seat Scandal". They then voiced opposition to him appointing a successor (which would have been Valerie Jarratt) until Burris was named in defiance. The democrats had a tough position because the Governor had no credibility and they did not want the choice tainted by the scandal. That was until they realised that the Republicans were calling for a "special election" to fill the seat, then all of a sudden the democrats accepted Burris.
Now, in Massachusettes, Ted Kenedy before his death sent a letter to the Democratic Senate and Governor asking that the law be changed to allow the Governor to appoint his successor upon his passing. In 2004, the Governor had this coveted role of choosing a successor, but when the Presidential election looked like Kerry would win, the Legislature changed the succession law, because Mitt Romney was Governor and did not want him to appoint a Republican to succeed Kerry.
Now that Kennedy is dead, the seat is to remain vacant until a special election (which poses a risk that a Republican could win the seat). So to circumvent this possibility and give the Senate Democrats their 60 vote majority again, they are going to change the law back to the Governor.
Does anyone else see electioneering here besides me?