Auros ([info]auros) wrote,
@ 2009-01-26 12:18:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood: pleased

Ask your Senators to support Feingold's Constitutional Amendment re: Senatorial Special Elections.
http://thepage.time.com/feingold-statement-on-amendment-proposal/

FEINGOLD TO INTRODUCE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ENDING GUBERNATORIAL APPOINTMENTS TO SENATE VACANCIES

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, issued the following statement today on plans to introduce an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to end appointments to the Senate by state governors and require special elections in the event of a Senate seat vacancy.

“The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end. In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people. I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute. As the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing on this important topic soon.”


I supported seating Roland Burris, and I think Gillibrand is a pretty decent pick (though for NY, we could've gotten somebody more solidly progressive). I'm generally in favor of executing whatever legal process we have as efficiently and fairly as possible.

But that doesn't mean we can't improve that process. The people should choose their Senators when there's a vacancy, the same as when there's a regular election.

(Read 9 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]gorgo
2009-01-27 01:48 am UTC (link)
One thought is that having the governor pick a replacement has a big advantage in speed, and that there are cases where that matters. This time around, we had a fair amount of warning that Obama, Biden, and Clinton were going to be resigning, probably enough time to put together a special election before it happened, but in the case of a senator dying or developing a serious medical condition, there often isn't that much warning. Similarly, this cycle had the resignations happening after Congress had been on a break for the holidays, but a vacancy could happen just as an important bill was coming up for vote or something similar.

Thinking about it, I could see myself supporting a change that requires special elections within 3-6 months of a senator announcing their resignation, but allows the governor to appoint an interim replacement if the election hasn't happened by the time the senator resigns. That'd be a good compromise that prevents governors from doing crazy things like appointing themselves to vacant seats without as much potential to leave a state under-represented at critical moments.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]auros
2009-01-27 02:05 am UTC (link)
I believe the standard turnaround on single-item special elections is ~45 days, which in the scheme of the legislative process is not all that bad.

In any case, I would not object to an appointee, who is not allowed to run in the special election, serving during a 30-60 day window before an elected official can take office. But I think this is an important enough issue that I will support any reasonable proposal; and I think Feingold is a smart guy, likely to come up with something better than barely-acceptable.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read 9 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…