On April 9, the Montana House State Administration Committee passed SB 279. It had already passed the Senate. It says that when a vacancy occurs in a U.S. Senate seat, there should be a special election to fill the vacancy. Current law says the Governor appoints someone who serves until the next regularly-scheduled congressional election.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
The one problem I see with having special elections is the cost. This bill does not have a fiscal note. An election would cost over 500-thousand dollars paid for by the counties or really just paid for by us the tax payers. This bill is the result of the 2012 elections when the Montana governor appointed his LT Gov to the U.S. Senate. The LT Gov was already a candidate for that office.
In Montana, a senate special election is no more expensive than a special election for Congress.
The appointment provision in the 17th Amendment is holdover from the old system where state legislatures elected senators. They would have either had to been called into special session or leave the seat vacant.
Before the 17th Amendment, if a vacancy occurred while the legislature was in session, there could not be an appointment made, even if the legislature was unaware that a vacancy occurred before they adjourned.
And any appointment was only valid until the next legislative session. Most state legislatures met annually. When the Constitution was written, it was considered radical to let Representatives to serve 2-year terms, since most states had annual elections, and some even semi-annually. Congress required the election to occur as soon as the legislature met.
Maybe instead of letting the people choose their senator, the legislature could just buy everyone a PlayStation.
The governor could just appoint someone that couldn’t run for election, but hold the election at the next regular time rather then having a special election at the of the U.S. Senator’s term for office.