Legislature or Proving Ground?

When it comes to crime and punishment, we forcefully believe that the government has no right to put a convict’s neck on the chopping block. And most of Massachusetts agrees. So we are thankful that Gov. Mitt Romney’s proposal to reinstate capital punishment in the Commonwealth met sound defeat in the Massachusetts House of Representatives on Tuesday. But there’s no doubt that Romney’s primary motivation for introducing this hopeless bill was not so much to debate the criminal code as it was to appeal to the national conservative electorate that he’ll need to capture the presidency in 2008. The bill only added to Romney’s track record of grandstanding to conservative voters nationwide, which he accomplishes by promoting positions that stand in stark contrast to those of his true constituents. Romney must remember that he is the governor of Massachusetts and will remain so until 2006, and, as such, his primary duties are to the people of the Commonwealth, not potential voters elsewhere in the nation. To abuse both his constituents and the legislature as springboards for one’s own political agenda is both irresponsible and inappropriate.

The House’s decision to kill Romney’s death penalty bill was commendable but far from unexpected. Public opinion among commonwealth residents has turned increasingly against the death penalty in recent years, and nearly two-thirds of the representatives ended up voting against this callous practice. Two separate bills to reinstate the death penalty had already been rejected by the House in the past eight years—first in 1997, and then again in 2001. In short, the people’s will on the matter was abundantly clear, and there was no need for Romney to reintroduce a settled issue for a third time in a decade.

Indeed, the attempted reintroduction of capital punishment is only the latest installment in Romney’s courtship of the GOP’s conservative wing. Romney has already become something of a national symbol of the opposition to same-sex unions. Despite strong support for gay marriages in his own state, Romney has repeatedly tried to advance his own ideology in the legislature, which, in turn, has repeatedly voiced its disapproval of banning same-sex unions.

These legislative defeats, of course, mean little to a governor who’s almost certainly not going to run for reelection in 2006. Romney has been building the foundations for a presidential campaign almost since he took office years ago. He’s campaigned for Republicans across the country, made speeches at major conservative functions, and even visited the political breeding ground of Iowa multiple times. Given the transparency of his presidential ambitions, there is little doubt as to Romney’s motivation for promoting a strictly conservative social agenda in a state that clearly doesn’t want his policies.

We do not challenge Romney’s legitimate right to launch a presidential campaign while in office, because planning a Presidential campaign must, out of necessity, start several years in advance. We do, however, object to his abuse of the legislature and blatant defiance of the will of his constituents. To use his personal time to prepare for his political future is one thing, but to hijack his state’s legislature and convert it into a national showcase of his political agenda is quite another. The issues that Romney continues to needlessly push—reinstating capital punishment and, most prominently, banning same-sex marriage—have already been sufficiently debated, and the electorate’s will has been made clear. To reintroduce them for his own political gain cheapens the legislature and insults the residents of the Commonwealth. Such tactics are unbecoming not only of a governor, but also of a possible future presidential candidate.