Friday, August 28, 2009
Barry / Politics Should Governors Fill U.S. Senate Vacancies?
Posted by Bruce Barry on Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Here in Tennessee the governor appoints a replacement without restrictions until the next general election. The last such occasion was in 1992 when Ned McWherter named his aide Harland Mathews to fill the Senate seat vacated by Al Gore. I say "without restrictions" because four states that allow governors to fill vacancies do so with restrictions on the party of the appointee. In Arizona the governor has to appoint a someone from the same party as the departed senator, and in Hawaii, Utah, and Wyoming the governor must choose from a list of candidates provided by the party of the prior senator.
Some Massachusetts Democrats want to make a quick change to state law to allow Governor Deval Patrick to appoint a successor to Kennedy so that the state will not have diminished representation during what some see as an important stretch of time (health care reform, the climate bill, and so forth). Democrats and liberals obviously have a self-serving interest in seeing such a change and appointment since Patrick, a Democrat, will name a Democrat to the seat.
The Boston Globe sought to make the case for giving Patrick this power in an editorial this morning, arguing with some hyperbole that "there is no mourning period when it comes to ensuring adequate representation for Massachusetts residents in the US Senate." But even the blue-tinted editorialists at The New York Times question the small-d democratic integrity of appointed senators, suggesting that the best approach is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requiring elections to fill Senate vacancies (Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold has introduced just such an amendment).
The Times rightly notes that "special elections put the power where it should be in a democracy -- with the people," but there is a valid case to be made for gubernatorial appointments along with special elections. University of Texas consitutitonal law professor Sandy Levinson offered a brief version of that argument the other day: "Why it is 'democratic' to deprive states of any representation at all for the months required to have a special election is beyond me."
I think Levinson has it more or less right: governors should be able to fill a seat temporarily so that voters are not denied representation for an extended period of time, but under two conditions. First, it makes sense to restrict that appointment power by party as four states already do, and second, there should be a special election if the next general election is more than, say, six months away. This does still present the risk that governors will appoint cronies who then benefit from incumbency, but that risk is minimized by a special election that occurs without excessive delay.
I'm not quite ready, though, to sign on to a proposal by House Republicans that would allow gubernatorial appointments followed by a special election within 90 days. I fear that's too soon: a special election that comes too early will inevitably and disproportionately favor the wealthiest self-funding candidates, who have enough advantages as it is. The Feingold amendment is potentially troublesome for the same reason.
Comments (9)
Showing 1-9 of 9
In this instance, Mass should be required to lie in the bed it created. They changed the law specifically to prevent a Republican governor from appointing a Republican replacement for John Kerry had he won. He didn't but the law is still on the books.
Now, they want the old situation and be able to immediately appoint a Democrat so the liberal seat will be filled.
The law should remain as is.
like
dislike
"They changed the law specifically to prevent a Republican governor from appointing a Republican replacement for John Kerry had he won."
Yes indeed and it was old Teddy himself that instigated that change.
And before he died he was trying to instigate a change back to the way it was before that so the current Dem gov could appoint an Dem to take his place.
This would be a completely political law. I'm sorry, but laws shouldn't be made in the name of political expediency.
http://tomoveanation.blogspot.com
Teddy just wanted to exercise his power from beyond the grave. Hell, nobody wants to abandon lifes work and say goodbye. I think it lovely that he was his own worst enemy in the project.
Really, Teddy's maneuvering is little different from LBJ's when he made major LBJ type moves toward maintaining his Senate power after his election as VP. He even kept the 'Taj Mahal', his opulent Senate Majority Leader office accomodations. But the Senate put a stop to his machinations. Leaving him in powerless opulence, much to his frustration.
Enjoy your peace and quiet, Ted. That's your reward.
We can always count on the informed readers to fill in the the holes of a story the Scene's merry band of unbiased writers "forget."
"Enjoy your peace and quiet, Ted. That's your reward."
I rather doubt that his peace and quiet WILL be his reward.
It's more likely he will spend eternity in a submerged car trying to breath from a small air pocket at the roof.
The only good Democrat is a dead one. Even that Kopechne chick was a lousy lib who was probably screwing Teddy, so I shed no tears for her either. If only Teddy had drowned also, this country would have been better off and we wouldn't have had his "life's work" towards socialized healthcare. Maybe Obama and Michelle - and the kids, too, what the hell - will take a little drive towards that Chappaquiddick bridge themselves. God willing.
Gonna' be interesting gettin' over there, ain't it Gil. I once heard a preacher-man expostulate that we will all be surprised at who turns up in the same place we are. Hmmmm.
Truthfully, the ones I'm most interested in are like Sanitary Pope. Sanitary worked in the local junkyard. He didn't bathe. Must confess I cannot imagine him in glory attire.
