On November 30, New Jersey Assembly Majority Whip John F. McKeon (D-West Orange) introduced A4271, a bill to provide that when a governor appoints a U.S. Senator to fill a vacancy, the governor must appoint someone who has been a member of the same party as the party of the original Senator.
The bill says the appointee “shall be from the same political party as the person vacating the office, and shall have been a member of the political party continuously from the time the person vacating the office began their current term of office.” The bill does not deal with a situation in which the original Senator was not a member of a qualified political party. Currently, the U.S. Senate has two members who were not the nominees of a qualified political party when they were elected. They are Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. U.S. Senators in the past who were registered independents part of the time they served in the Senate are Wayne Morse of Oregon (1953-1956), George Norris of Nebraska (1936-1943), and Robert C. Smith of New Hampshire (1999). Also, Harry F. Byrd, Jr., of Virginia, was elected as an independent in 1970 and again in 1976. Virginia does not have registration by party.
Another ambiguity introduced by the bill, if it were to become law, would be cases in which the original U.S. Senator had switched parties during his or her term. For example, Senator Arlen Specter changed his registration from “Republican” to “Democratic” in April 2009. One wonders how the bill would be intrepreted if someone like Senator Specter resigned or died while in office. Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for the news about the New Jersey bill.
Vermont has a custom of filling vacancies with someone from the same party as the person who vacated the office. I believe this applies to any office for which a vacancy is filled by appointment.
17th Amdt part —
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
—
shall / may — so difficult.
Where is the language restricting the choices for any such *temporary appointments* ???
Remedy — have each legislative body candidate / incumbent choose his/her own vacancy before the election / during a term of office from a rank order list.
Legislative body to fill vacancies in case of default.
I.E. the U.S.A. and State Constitutions are filled with all sorts of timebomb loopholes — which the EVIL party hacks exploit to the max.
See Hitler using the FATAL loophole in the 1919 Germany (Weimar) Constitution permitting the govt to suspend the German Bill of Rights during an alleged emergency.
Result – 1933-1945 nazi tyranny and World War II.
Both the EVIL top Donkeys and EVIL top Elephants are playing their EVIL games to get PERMANENT control of the U.S.A. regime.
See the fall of the Roman Republic 120 B.C – 27 B.C. due to nonstop leftwing / rightwing machinations — civil wars, tyrants, purges, etc. — until the super tyrant Emperor Augustus Caesar took over — killing lots of folks on all sides.
How about eliminating the 17th amendment and having the state legislature elect US Senators?
citizen1- hear, hear! I totally agree with you!
Legislative elections for US Senators was a disaster. Frequently state legislatures would deadlock, and fail to agree on anyone, so a state could go unrepresented in the US Senate (for at least one seat) for months at a time, sometimes as long as a year. Also there was a terrible problem with bribery. Wealthy people who wanted to be US Senators would do favors for state legislators in order to get the appointment. There is a reason the 17th amendment passed. It wasn’t easy, because state legislatures in 3/4ths of the states had to pass it, and the amendment was taking power away from state legislators. So it was overwhelming disgust with the old system that made that happen.
Where is *any* disgust with the nonstop minority rule gerrymanders in the U.S.A. before and since 4 July 1776 ???
The U.S.A. Senate is one of THE most ANTI-Democracy legislative bodies in the so-called free world.
Lots of very small States with blowhard party hacks getting elected — after being nominated by even smaller pluralities in extremist party hack primaries / conventions.
Sorry — CA (2008 largest voters) is NOT equal to WY (2008 smallest voters) — except in the brains of math MORONS and lovers of minority rule.
Note the 6-6-6 overlapping terms of the Senators.
A certain sign of something ??? Duh.
P.R. and A.V.
Richard- I respectfully disagree with you. The founders had it right in the first place.
its like some of these people look at the founders and see the bible and jesus himself. Legislative elections for US Senators was horribly undemocratic.
A whole bunch of EVIL ANTI-Democracy so-called *compromises* (aka *deals*) were put into the Constitution at the top secret 1787 Federal Convention by the party hack elites — with their 1787 mode of so-called political thinking.
5 slaves = 3 free persons for getting U.S.A. Rep. seats among the States
2 Senators per State — appointed by party hack State legislatures
Electoral College for choosing a Prez/VP
i.e. 3 indirect minority rule gerrymander systems stuck over the State legislature gerrymander systems.
One result — 1860 >> 1861 – 1865 with about 620,000 DEAD Americans on both sides in the horrific Civil War I.
Political *science* has advanced since 1787.
P.R. (around since about 1844 – repeat 1844) and nonpartisan A.V. NOW — before the EVIL gerrymander monsters really set things off with an extremist *intolerable* law or treaty.
The danger level now is T-O-T-A-L due to the party hacks in Deficit City — much more dangerous than in 1775 or 1859.
Prior to the adoption of the 17th Amendment, a number of states had begun holding preferential primaries for U. S. senator, and the legislatures rubber-stamped the result of the primary. Even Calvin Coolidge, then active in Massachusetts politics, favored direct election of senators.
Election of senators by state legislatures was the main check of the state governments on the national government. Senators were considered “ambassadors” from the state governments to the federal government.
Tom DiLorenzo wrote a great column on the 17th Amendment. When I posted this piece on my blog, lo and behold, RichardW posted a negative comment.
Under the old setup, legislatures sometimes instructed their U. S. senators how to vote on certain issues, although the senators didn’t always follow orders.
If my son is so smart, why is he still living in my basement at 42?
It is not the party or personality, it is the ideas. To force the appointment of someone from the same party institutionalizes the concept that it is the party that people do or should vote for. People should not vote for parties or personalities. Voters should elect someone that has the ideas to solve the problems that are relevant to the election.
8 –
You’re quite right. Subscribers to the “original intent” theory of interpreting and applying constitutional law are every bit as doctrinaire as priests…excepting of course when their personal views aren’t represented in print in the Constitution…like a prohibition of abortion, for instance.
We should absolutely NOT repeal the 17th amendment. I like having even a small say in who is my Senator. Just because the Founding Fathers wanted something done a certain way, doesn’t mean it should be done that way! We must change the Constitution to adapt to the times or we’re doomed to never improve our republic and make it more democratic. Strict constructionist views hamper progress.
In the pre-War days when there would be long spells when Congress would not be in session it was alright to call an election to fill the vacancy without temporarily appointing someone. Now that we have essentially a year-round Congress that is much less of a workable idea. The narrowness of debate on many issues impels filling a Senate vacancy as rapidly as possible. This year alone the vacancies in first Minnesota and Massachusetts and now New Jersey have effected when debate can (or can not) be held on several important issues that will have long lasting effects on our countries future developement.
Also RIchard:
As far as you know has any other state in the past considered a similar piece of legislation? Whether for U. S. Senate or any other elected position?
Legislative election of US senators was a critical part of the federalist system that the founders wanted as opposed to what is becoming if not all ready in fact is a national system. The House is suppose to represent the interests of the people and the Senate is suppose to represent the interest of the State. This was a check and balance that the founders but in.
There are several other states that require the Governor to appoint a new Senator who has the same partisan affiliation as the previous Senator. Wyoming is one.
As to comment #16, why can’t the voters of a state choose a Senator who will represent that state? What is it about state legislators that makes them such better at picking someone to represent the state, compared to that state’s voters? In a sense, the voters of a particular state are that state.
#16 The Senate has been a prime source in destroying the legislative powers of the States — by a subversion of the general welfare clause and the inter-State commerce clause in Art. I, Sec. 8 — due to the party hack Supremes — appointed by party hack Prezs and confirmed by party hack Senators — an EVIL and vicious circle.
The States now are de facto financial agents to pass lots of so-called federal aid to persons and local regimes in the States.
CA is still NOT WY — regardless of the many extremist party hack Senators from the many very small States.
#5 Long term deadlocks were uncommon. Early on, the problem of the two houses of the legislature deadlocking was recognized, and Congress using its power to regulate election of senators to provide that legislators would vote as a single body to elect senators. The only cases this failed was when there were 3 factions in the legislature.
There is a really simple solution. Congress has the authority to regulate the manner in which senators are elected. Require that the election to fill a vacancy be held within 60 days of the time of the vacancy. If the States want to permit governors to appoint a senator, they may.
Alternatively, do away with the Senate altogether, and simply require that any federal legislation pass 3/5 of the State legislatures within one year after House passage.
Abolish the Senate.
Abolish the Electoral College.
2 EVIL and vicious minority rule election systems.
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
P.R. and nonpartisan A.V.
Otherwise — get ready for Civil WAR II when the gerrymander party hacks pass THE *intolerable* law which sets things off.
See the 1773 Tea Tax Act in England >>> American Revolution (after about 14 years of warnings).
See the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act in the gerrymander Congress (regarding slavery in such territory areas). >>> Civil WAR I (after about 65 years of warnings)
The free / slave State admission stuff in the Senate was a direct part of the lead up to Civil WAR — and the machinations leading up to the 1860 minority rule Prez election — Lincoln elected with about 40 percent of the popular votes = minority rule.
The EVIL arrogant party hacks NEVER learn from warnings — it is part of their EVIL arrogant genes.
The current EVIL mess has been developing since 1929 – a mere 80 years of party hacks becoming more and more EVIL arrogant.
#19: When did Congress provide that legislators vote as a single body in choosing a US senator? I recall hearing that Sen. Stephen Douglas in 1858 defeated Lincoln, 54-46, and I always wondered about that.
#15: New Jersey has a Senate vacancy? Last time I looked, Comrades Lautenberg and Menendez were still in their seats.
16 –
You’re partially right. But, indeed, many of the Founding Fathers, all of whom who had lived under and were most familiar with a British parliamentary system, saw the Senate as a body which would check the actions of the Congress, in part by representing the well-educated, the well-bred element of the American population. Hamilton, in particular, comes to mind ni this regard, although there is an element of this belief as well in Madison’s exposition of his “extended republic” theory of government.
It’s a common mistake to point to any aspect of the constitution of our government and claim it was created to support a federalist system. That is not true, and neither is the implied assertion that the Founding Fathers were in near unanimity in support of a federalist system, because they were not.
19 –
“Do away with the Senate altogether”
Wow. That’s a whopper of a “alternative.”
Whatcha smokin’, Jim?
#23-Most other democracies manage to function quite well with an upper house (the Lords, the Canadian Senate) that can delay, but cannot seriously impact legislation. In the case of Canada, it is also a federal system, and one where the provinces have much more power than states do in the US.
At a minimum, I think Senate filibusters need to be eliminated or seriously limited (perhaps take a leaf from the NFL regarding challenges and limit each Senator to only so many votes against cloture per session). The Constitution envisions a need for a supermajority only in the case of conviction on impeachment and veto overrides. The idea that a minority of 40% can paralyze all action anytime they feel like it is ridiculous.
Finally, the all purpose recourse to “The Founders said” needs to stop. The Founders were smart guys, but far from infallible (and I don’t think any of them claimed infallibility). The aspects of their plan that still work should be kept, those that don’t should be changed.
#24 – I agree that the whole “this is what the Founding Fathers wanted” rote is spent. They could not have envisioned airplanes, the Internet, birth control pills, mass immigration or gas at $3.00/gallon. Why are we then going to base every political decision on what they thought?
Don’t abolish the Senate. Just take away most of its power and give it to the House (which should be increased to about 6,000 members and be elected proportionally).
What is the AREA fixation for the representation of UNEQUAL numbers of human Electors-Voters in each area ???
Just like the old flat earth fixation or the Mother Earth is center of the universe fixation in the brains of ignorant MORONS.
P.R. (to represent ALL voters) and nonpartisan A.V.
Political *science* and Democracy have advanced since the 1787 elitists made their EVIL deals in the top secret 1787 Federal Convention.
The 3 gerrymander systems in the 1787 Constitution did NOT come down from Heaven — more like up from Hell — see the 620,000 dead in 1861-1865 due to the Senate and the Electoral College.
Election related amendments
12
14-2
15
17
19
20
22
23
24
26
27 (proposed in 1789 – ratified in 1992 – a mere 203 years later)
11 of 17 (or 10 of 16) after 1-10 Bill of Rights (1-10 plus 27).
10/16 = a mere 62.5 percent of the amendments related to elections.
More Democracy — NOT less Democracy — to END the rule of the EVIL party hacks monarchs / oligarchs in the U.S.A. and State regimes — before it is too late.
ALL sorts of political – social – economic alarm bells are ringing due to the accumulated effects of the EVIL party hacks — undeclared wars, giant deficits, etc.
#21 July 25, 1866 (39th Congress, Session I, Chapter 245).
It provided that each house meet on the 2nd Tuesday of their session, and vote for a senator; and that they meet on the following day in joint session to determine whether they had voted for the same person. If not, they would immediately conduct a joint vote. If no candidate received a majority, they would meet daily to vote, until there was a majority.
An earlier version of the bill would have required continuous voting, with no conduct of other business until a senator was elected.
Bills proposed in the antebellum period had more elaborate procedures, such as a runoff vote between the two leading candidates; or elimination of a trailing candidate one by one; or permitting election by plurality if there was no majority.
Delaware had vacancies following expiration of terms ending in 1899 and 1901, which were not filled until 1903.
24 –
I have no dispute with what you say about limited power of “upper” houses in other countries. But…how would this change be effected in this country? “Simply?”
I don’t think so.
As for filibusters, I have no special problem with them, if they are filibusters in the traditional sense, i.e., a person or persons holding the floor through extended debate. Let the public decide whether their point of view on one issue merits holding up the business of government on all other issues. However, the procedural filibusters which don’t even make it into open chambers are, in my opinion, odious.
And as for the doctrine of “original intent” add to 25’s list public education, voting by citizens with no title to land, women suffrage, ICBM’s, pollution, definition of corporations as persons, the power of political parties (barely nascent at the time of the convention), unions, and on and on and on…including the inescapable fact that there were deep, fundamental and irreconcilable differences among the FF’s themselves – heck, a few left Philadelphia in mid-convention, never to return, and RI didn’t even bother to send any “FF’s” at all. It’s a red herring, a politically motivated ruse invented to barely cloak a conservative agenda and anoint their champions on the bench as high priests whose analysis of the Constitution is immune to modern day challenges.
And then there’s the little matter of Article V…
#28-I didn’t mean to imply that abolishing the Senate or making it a clearly subordinate body like the Canadian Senate or the British House of Lords would be easy. It would of course require a Constitutional amendment which every Senator would oppose. We’re talking theoretically here, not practically.
The old-fashioned “Mr Smith Goes to Washington” filibusters were certainly preferable to the cloture votes that have no cost and thus can be used for even trivial matters. Overall though, I think when the voters give a party a majority, they should be able to implement the agenda they ran on. Then they can be held accountable. The current system makes accoutablity a joke, because every significant piece of legislation has to be dumbed-down to get 60 votes.
The problem right now is that it has become almost impossible for Congress to act unless they can promise no-one will ever feel pain. That’s a big reason for where we are today.
#28 The 1787 Federal Convention gang ignored the requirement for having ALL States approve amendments to the 1777 Articles of Confederation.
Result — 11 States de facto ignored the A.C. — via the gerrymander ratifying conventions — Art. VII Constitution.
RI and NC caved in AFTER the 1789 U.S.A. regime got going.
State 14 in 1791 was the independent republic of Vermont — that had declared its independence in 1777.
i.e. when things get rotten *enough* — THINGS WILL HAPPEN.
See 1775 and 1861.
History keeps repeating when the arrogant party hacks go too far.
29 –
Agreed. 100%. Back when the Gang of 14 formed (ostensibly – big assumption) under the threat of Republicans going “nuclear” on the filibuster, I was hoping they would indeed go nuclear and be done with this ridiculous specter of government being held hostage by 41 Senators over a single issue.
Great post, have to feed your blog to learn more useful information.Really appericate it.