On January 29, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) introduced a proposed Constitutional amendment, to provide that governors could no longer appoint U.S. Senators when a seat becomes vacant. Instead, special elections would be required, as is currently the case for U.S. House vacancies. Here is Senator Feingold’s press release. The SJR number is not yet available. Thanks to Jack Ross for this news. The bill is co-sponsored by Senators John McCain (R-Arizona) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska).
Fugheddabutit!
The 17th needs to be repealed, not added on to!
Candidates and incumbents should be able to name their replacements on ballots or during a term of office respectively.
NO need for vacancy special elections — that have even worse voter turnouts than regular elections.
The legislative power MUST always be ready 24/7 for new stuff — and to watch out for tyrant executive officers — regardless of the armies of MORONS who want term limits and short term legislative bodies — meeting X days a year.
That’s Mark Begich; Nick was his dad who died in the plane crash with Hale Boggs.
I’m not sure how I feel about this. I guess overall it would be a good thing, even though it’s currently a state issue.
More on this from Feingold:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/26/11445/5789/428/689116
Every U.S. House member in history has been elected — that’s required by the Constitution. The same should be true of U.S. Senators. About one in four Senators have been first appointed rather than elected since the 17th amendment — and I trust the people more than governors.
Here come the commies. Further destruction of the US Constitution.
Why not let the state legislatures appoint the senator. Hey, that sounds familiar. haha
Right on Joe Murphy!
What do you think about mandatory caretaker appointments? That is, the governor is allowed to appoint but the appointed candidate is not allowed to run for re-election. That way, no candidate is given an advantage going into the next election and we avoid the burden of a special election. On the other hand, it could wind up being kind of a “mandatory lame duck” position. Just brainstorming . . .
Agree with you Rob…….when those who represent us are taken out of the hands of voters……citizens are the real losers. Let the people decide!!!
Greg @8:
Frankly, the legislatures should do the appointing, not the Governors. Ditto the electing, but that requires repealing the 17th Amendment (which would return the States’ check on the federal government!).
Demo Rep @2:
When you get succession naming by seance, you have a problem. The Senate is not some sort of Divine Right of Kings, and this ain’t MacBeth, either.
I’ll take the “commies” (a word that is overused and extremely misunderstood by people here) over the fascists any day.
Thanks, John Deeth, for the correction on which Begich is in the Senate now.
It is not necessary to approve a constitutional amendment in order to have timely elections to fill senate vacancies. Under the Article 1, Section 4, Congress has the authority to regulate the time of elections of senators (and representatives). As Sen. Feingold’s press release notes, Congress considered amending Article 1, Section 4 at the time of the passage of the 17th Amendment and chose not to.
If Congress required special elections to be held within 60 days of the vacancy, it would not matter whether the governor could make a temporary appointment or not. In addition, Congress could provide for contingencies such as martial law and natural catastrophes. Such law could also apply to House vacancies. While there are no appointments for representatives, a governor may still currently delay calling a special election leaving the voters unrepresented for months at a time.
re: mandatory caretakers. I don’t like the idea of declaring anyone ineligible to run (including term limits). But I think Arkansas has such a law, or at least did in 1977 when John McClellan died and Kaneaster Hodges held the seat until David Pryor was elected in the 1978 general.
Further brainstorming (following on Greg @9, among others):
I share the concerns both for letting the voters decide and for filling vacancies promptly to restore representation (such as it is). But I think they are at least sometimes at cross-purposes, and would need to be balanced against each other.
Elections across a whole state, or even a whole Congressional district, take time and money to arrange. A provisional appointment to last until the next regularly-scheduled election in that jurisdiction, or perhaps as late as the next but one (if not more than a year off?), seems a defensible idea. I’m not sure whether appointments should be by a governor or a legislature; the latter has the historical precedent on its side, of course, but the former seems likely to be easier to be sure will happen promptly. (I’m also not sure whether such appointments should be conditional on not running for that office the next time — though I suspect I’d prefer to limit the ban to the next regular election for that same office.)
Maybe one other thing that could or should be factored in is when the vacancy arises. In Michigan, there are fairly few restrictions on recalls — any reason goes as long as it’s clear enough what the people would be signing petitions about and voting on — but they’re not allowed for actions taken in the first or last six months of a term. Presumably the latter at least is to avoid the pure inefficiency of trying to get through the process and hold an election right before you’d have to hold one anyway.
My state Senate district is currently unrepresented because the incumbent won a seat in Congress. I want us to have our proper voice in the Legislature — so I want prompt elections (to use a mild word). But the question of whether or when to call them is considerably partisan (to the great surprise of no one here, I’m sure). Requiring a caretaker appointment — perhaps at least in cases like this where the previous officeholder moved on voluntarily — might be one way of drawing out some of the partisan poison. Another might be to say that, at least in these cases, the temporary appointee *COULD NOT* be of the same party as either the previous holder of that office or the majority voice in the appointing authority.
Hear me out — and then let’s discuss why it might or might not work.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the party that “loses” by this; the candidate at least walked into the situation with eyes open, and probably the party was right behind her/him. I do feel some sympathy for the voters who elected the previous holder, but we won’t always be sure they feel the same way about her/him or her/his party when the vacancy arises.
But I also don’t expect that the appointing authority, if it is controlled by one of the “Big Two” minority parties (no US party has a majority of the people in it), will always appoint a member of the other of the “Big Two”. Maybe not even often.
So we might get some genuine independents — or members of alternative parties — serving for these provisional times. That would be less likely to lead to delay of appointments or elections caused by friction between the “Big Two”. It might also make the “Big Two” more likely to push the “caretaker-only” concept — but alternative parties might trade that for the chance to show that they and their candidates have a legitimate place in US politics. And even if their placeholders were kept from running for that same office the next time, they could (if they did decently0 make some names for themselves and run for something else.
Call it the “Jefferson Smith” principle, maybe? (Though I suppose it doesn’t have much more of a chance of passing than there was of that coin the governor flipped in the movie landing on its edge. . . .)
John Anthony La Pietra
Elections Co-ordinator
Green Party of Michigan
“Why not let the state legislatures appoint the senator.”
Have you seen Illinois’ election laws for the state legislature? No independent candidate has been on any ballot for those offices in more than 25 years. And “new” parties have huge obstacles of their own.
Great idea, let the state legislatures rig their own elections by controlling ballot access and then give them the power appoint US Senators. Ballot access laws in 1913 were not the same as they are in 2009. I think voting to fill vacancies in office is the way to go, but only one small problem in a sea of undemocratic waters.
I support this proposed amendment as well. Let the people decide.
BTW, the joint resolution now has a number: S.J.Res. 7 — or so says THOMAS.
A side note:
I hadn’t looked at the text before — but, as the resolution is written, it doesn’t say in so many words that a person chosen to through a vacancy-filling election would serve for the unexpired Senate term of the person being replaced.
I know Article I, Section 3 already requires dividing Senators “as equally as may be into three Classes”. But I don’t know that it would prevent shifting/shuffling of classes if the amendment were adopted. (Especially since the current number of Senators isn’t divisible by three, so the classes aren’t exactly equal in size now. Next year we’re scheduled to be electing 34 Class III Senators, versus 33 Class I Senators in 2012 and 33 Class II Senators in 2014.)
The amendment’s text, as proposed, is:
/==================================================
Section 1. No person shall be a Senator from
a State unless such person has been elected by
the people thereof. 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.
Section 2. This amendment shall not be so
construed as to affect the election or term of
any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as
a part of the Constitution.
==================================================/
Maybe someone can suggest adding four words to Section 1?
/==================================================
Section 1. No person shall be a Senator from
a State unless such person has been elected by
the people thereof. 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 THE UNEXPIRED TERMS OF
such vacancies.
==================================================/
(The proposed language also doesn’t say when the vacancy-filling election must be called. Setting a maximum number of days may not be the way to go. But some language to indicate expeditious action in the circumstances, and within the bounds of state election law and practice, might be useful. But that’s another topic . . . and I haven’t seen much response yet to my first invitation to storm brains.)
Here’s another angle. Seven Michigan state senators have proposed an amendment to the state constitution to “provide for temporary replacement members of the legislature if a member is called to active military service.” It’s Michigan Senate Joint Resolution D:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2009-SJR-D
And here’s what it says. (The existing text is paragraph #1 of the following; the amendment would add paragraphs #2 and #3.)
/=====================================================
Sec. 8. No person holding any office, employment
or position under the United States or this state or
a political subdivision thereof, except notaries
public and members of the armed forces reserve, may
be a member of either house of the legislature.
If a member of either house of the legislature who is a member of the reserves or the national guard is called to active military duty for more than 365 consecutive days, a temporary replacement member shall be appointed to hold the office of the member until the member is released from active military duty, until the member is otherwise able to return to his or her duties as a legislator, or until the expiration of the member’s term of office. The member shall appoint a resident elector of that district, selected by the member, who is in the same political party as the member and who is approved by the local political party of the member in the same manner as the local political party selects a replacement to fill a vacancy in the legislature that occurs after the primary election and before the following general election as provided by law. The temporary replacement member shall perform all duties, have the same responsibilities, and receive the same compensation as a member of the legislature. A member who is temporarily replaced may run for reelection or for any other office subject to applicable state or federal law.
While a temporary replacement member is appointed, the member’s salary shall be suspended. However, all medical health benefits of the member shall remain in full force and effect.
=====================================================/
Obviously not in line with my brainstorming above — but submitted FYI.