A Call for Elections to Vacant Senate Seats

By Bernie Becker
January 28, 2009

It’s safe to say the process of governors appointing people to the United States Senate has caused a bit of a stir lately.

But if Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, had his way, the sort of spectacle that engulfed Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Roland Burris, as well as Gov. David Paterson with Caroline Kennedy and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, would be things of the past.

After watching the appointment of four senators in a two-month span, Mr. Feingold released a statement over the weekend that said he would introduce a constitutional amendment that would make special elections for empty Senate seats mandatory.

In the statement, Mr. Feingold called gubernatorial appointments “an anachronism that must end” and said the Senate should be “as responsive as possible to the will of the people.”


In most states, governors are allowed to nominate replacement senators to a temporary term, usually until the next congressional election. (The four states that just filled Senate seats — Colorado, Delaware, Illinois and New York — are among the states that basically follow that script.) Some states, including Mr. Feingold’s Wisconsin, already require a special election to fill a seat.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/a-call-for-elections-to-vacant-senate-seats/#comments

The system is not democratic. In DE a crony of Biden is holding the seat until Biden's son returns from Iraq. In NY Caroline Kennedy was considered the front runner, even though she had never ran for elected office, mainly based on her name and her support of Obama in the primaries. Then we have the great state of IL and its corrupt governor attempting to sell the senate seat to the highest bidder.

I think that when a vacancy occurs in Congress, the governor should appoint a qualified person to hold the seat until a special election takes place no later than 6 months after the congressional seat becomes vacant. How about letting the people of the state decide who they want to represent them?

Democracy, what a novel concept........

:eyes:

There is nothing wrong with a governor appointing a senator to a temporary term to be filled the next election cycle in a special election, as will happen in New York.

The point that is missed is that there are only 100 senators and that Senators are the great guarantors of states' rights.

I don't give a damn about states rights myself, but I can see why the constitution is set up certain ways.

A state missing a senator is disadvantaged in terms of representation in the one body that most protects state specific interests, so there's much to be said for easy continuity in that body.

If elections are held then every time a senator dies the state loses out, losing half their delegation until such time as they can elect someone.

And... and this is a really big AND... there is nothing sinister in a state setting things up in such a way as to insure continuous representation. That seems a reasonable state interest to me.

(And any system for holding elections really fast will be even more chaotic. There's no fair or civilized way to elect a new senator in a month.)

The Senate is the only part of the federal government that is all about state interests. (I think states should be abolished, personally. But I can still look at whether something accomplishes the constitutional goal of representing state interests.)

If someone wanted to make the New York model universal that's something to talk about--governors not potentially appointing senators to 5 1/2 year terms.

Personally, I would have governors appoint missing Representatives also awaiting a special election.

If someone is not in the seat the people the seat represents have NO representation. Appointed temporary representation is better than none.

But adopting the New York model obviously wouldn't change anything about the Caroline fiasco.

The Constitutional provision originally for Representatives, now applied also to Senators, says that the governor can make a temporary appointment pending an election as the legislature determines.

It was almost certainly a stop-gap: Since it took months to organize an election the governor would appoint somebody until the election could be held.

If there are 4 years years left in a term, fine--appoint an interim rep for 6 months and then the replacement person takes over. Some states do it that way.

If the next election is 18 months away, some states say "interim" for 18 months is ok. This strikes me as sketchy, taking advantage of ambiguity in the interests of either finances or politics.

Some states let the term expire, and say the gov can appoint for the remainder of the term. In this case, "interim" would be for years. This strikes me as not what was intended, and wrong.