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]polkamadness
2009-01-27 02:14 am UTC (link)
I'm sorry, but this just doesn't rise above the bar of being worth a constitutional amendment in my opinion.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]auros
2009-01-27 02:21 am UTC (link)
Arguably the Sixteenth Amendment was intended to be interpreted as requiring a special election already (while allowing a gubernatorial short-term / interim appointment), but the vast majority of states currently allow unfettered gubernatorial appointment. Getting some clarity on that seems worthwhile to me, and the overall effect is non-partisan (if you look at the numbers, there are currently about 29 senators, basically evenly split, with the exact number depending on how you count Sanders and Lieberman, who have a governor in their state of the opposite party), but I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]plymouth
2009-01-27 03:40 am UTC (link)
The thing is, I don't think there's any other way it can be done. States are given leeway to determine their representatives - except as limited by the constitution. So unless you think it's a bad idea to do it at all, constitutional amendment is the only way to go.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]eccentrific
2009-01-27 03:58 am UTC (link)
Personally, I think a constitutional amendment is a bad idea for this reason. States *should* be given the leeway to determine their representatives.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]auros
2009-01-27 07:26 am UTC (link)
Well, again, I suppose you're free to have that opinion -- but by that logic, we never should've passed the Sixteenth, we should've just let governors and legislators keep picking the Senators.

(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…