Senator Thomas is proof: we need to change the method of replacing Senators

Senator Craig Thomas succumbed to leukemia last night, and our thoughts and prayers are with his family at this trying time, but his passing helps underline the need for a major change, most likely brought about by a Constutional Amendment, in the way vacancies in the House and Senate are dealt with.

Under the current law, the Governor of each State nominates a replacement Senator upon the death or resignation of one of that State's Senators. In Senator Thomas' case, this will not affect the balance of power since Wyoming's laws require his replacement to be chosen from the same party. However, in many other cases this has not been the case.

In 1982, when Democrat "Pete" Williams of New Jersey resigned in disgrace after his ABSCAM conviction, Republican Governor Tom Kean replaced him with Republican Nicholas Brady (who would later serve as Treasury Secretary).

Pennsylvania Republican John Heinz' death in a helicopter accident in 1991 led to Governor Bob Casey replacing Heinz with Harris Wofford, who then won a special election to finish out the term in his own right.

After the death of Paul Wellstone, Reform Party Governor Jesse Ventura of Minnesota replaced him with Dean Barkley, who had received 7% of the vote against Wellstone in 1996 when he ran on the Reform party line. Barkley only served for a short period, until Norm Coleman defeated former Senator and Vice-President Walter Mondale in the November 2002 election.

Had the law in Wyoming been different, the Democratic Governor would be appointing a Democrat to the seat, effectively (as was the case in the three examples above) overruling the decision of the state's voters, who overwhelmingly re-elected Thomas last year. Similarly, the death of a Democratic Senator in any State with a Republican Governor would lead to the Republicans retaking the U.S. Senate. The illness of Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota (whose Republican governor has stated he would appoint a Republican if Johnson resigns or dies) also underlines the need to change the way we replace Senators.

The Constitution needs to be amended, providing for the direct election of a replacement Senator by the people of a State within 60 days of a vacancy. This decision needs to be taken out of the hands of Governors, and handed over to the voters, to let them decide for themselves who will fill the Senate's empty chair.

if you only give the people 60 days to learn about the new candidates, will we have an informed electorate voting for the replacement?

It seems to me that your concerns could be addressed by amending the Constitution a bit more subtly, to simply state that the replacement must be from the same party as the former senator. This opens it's own can of worms (it would be the first time that political parties are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, IIRC), but my basic point is that you don't seem to have any problem with the selection process in Wyoming, just the process in the other states. Is that the case?

could you imagine trying to organize an election in a larger state like California with only 60 days notice? Getting hundreds or thousands of polling places, booths, and ballots in place? Hiring poll workers or volunteers?

Not mentioning that most states hold two general and two primary elections a year, and those 60 days would not likely fall on any of those dates.

The current system is alright, but still flawed. I think every state Governor should be forced to appoint someone of the same party to the seat, and maybe provisions to keep that person from immediately running for re-election to the seat, but the traditional wait until the next federal election to fill the vacancy is pretty adequete.

. . . in order to achieve that result. Pursuant to the 17th Amendment, any states that wishes may adopt the procedure you advocate.

the party of the late Senator pick three names and the Governor pick from them. Fast, simple and keeps the wishes of the voters in tact.

well, that's not totally true.

take the following hypothetical: let's say that in the previous General Election, the republican party didn't choose the most extreme right-wing candidate because they were afraid a hardcore right-winger might lose to the Democrat. the moderate republican they chose wins but then dies in office.

under the current Wyoming law, rather than choosing a similar candidate to the Senator who just died, they choose 3 of the most extreme right-wingers. the Democratic Governor then has no choice but to select one of the three. To me, this process, given the hypothetical, is totally undemocratic and it does NOT keep the wishes of the voters intact.

btw, their is a bill pending in the Wyoming legislature to eliminate the choice of 3 candidates and instead would allow the previous Senators party to select any candidate they prefer. if passed, the law would be effective on July 1. It looks like someone was anticipating that Senator Thomas was not going to survive his term.

Interesting that they wanted to change that. Hmmmmm

are replaced in Alaska, following a referendum that was held here after Frank Murkowski appointed his daughter Lisa to finish out his term after he left the senate to run for governor. Maybe this model wouldn't work in other states with larger populations, but I really like it for here where everybody pretty much knows everybody.

AS 15.40.140. Condition and Time of Calling Special Election.
When a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator or United States representative, the governor shall, by proclamation, call a special election to be held on a date not less than 60, nor more than 90, days after the date the vacancy occurs. However, if the vacancy occurs on a date that is less than 60 days before or is on or after the date of the primary election in the general election year during which a candidate to fill the office is regularly elected, the governor may not call a special election.

The states can pass laws to decide how the Senator is replaced, though this might be a wake-up call to states that have no "special election" laws on the books to address the situation now before it becomes an issue. I'm also not sure if the Governor would replace Thomas with a Democrat if the law weren't in place. Given that 70% of the state voted for a repuke in the last election, I'm not sure he would find it worth taking the political hit that would come from appointing a Dem.

If an MP dies, there is a by-election to replace him/her. I am not sure what the rules are about how soon the by-election must be; but 60 days does sound like a fairly typical length of time.

I don't know what the system is in other countries.

It's just a political reality.

First, it's an extremely rare case when the Senate is so evenly divided.

Second, voters in those states know that the governor gets to replace senate vacancies - that should be one factor in making their decision to vote for governor.

I just don't see any big problems having arisen from the systems currently in place.