Fill Senate Vacancies by Elections, Not Gubernatorial Appointments

The Rod Blagojevich-Roland Burris debacle and the will-she won’t-she Caroline Kennedy back-and-forth have made clear the need to eliminate the ridiculous practice of governors getting to appoint people into empty senate seats.

And luckily for us, Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold has a solution. Senator Feingold plans to introduce an amendment to the Constitution requiring special elections to fill an empty Senate Seat. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Feingold released the following statement:

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.

Nate Silver of 538 runs down the arguments for such an amendment. House seats already require a special election, so why don’t senate seats? Some states already mandate special elections, but not all do. And the gubernatorial appointees rarely win re-election bids.

Perhaps most importantly, there’s no indication that so amending the Constitution at this point would favor one party or the other. Silver’s analysis reveals that there are 14 Republicans whose replacements would be selected by a Democratic governor and 14 Democrats whose replacements would be selected by a Republican governor. A quick scan of the left- and right-wing blogs reveals bipartisan support for Feingold’s proposed amendment.

Amendments are a challenge to get through Congress, but this one has a good chance. Don’t be surprised if we soon have a 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

amethystlady a.

5:08PM PST on Feb 3, 2009

Unfortunately, this is too late to prevent Gregg from Blackmailing his governor into appointing another Republican to replace him in the Senate.

Reminds me of Blago-vich...

send a green star

Brad S.

4:47PM PST on Jan 30, 2009

unless we are talking about the last two months, where a Senator becomes ill or can not otherwise execute thier duties, the only fair and true democratic way to fill a reresentative post is by election

Jeffery B.

9:16AM PST on Jan 28, 2009

Raymond, your last point is so true. The fundamental problem with the system is people. People do not always do what is right or what is truly in their best interest. If you provide enough checks and balances then you can ameliorate the worst in us as individuals.

Blagojevich was required by Illinois state law to appoint a person to temporarily fill the Senate seat vacated by President Obama. If Blagojevich did not do so he would be breaking the law. The General Assembly of Illinois failed to change the Illinois constitution to allow voters the power to recall elected officials. This leaves Burris a Senator until he stands for election at the end of his present term.

Our system was designed to not be a democracy simply because a democracy does not perform any better than a republic. In fact a democracy could perform worse simply because the whims of the people oscillate greater without the damping effect of elected officials constrained by the constitution.

Our government is us. If we don't like it then we should look at how we, as citizens act and why.

Raymond H.

4:35AM PST on Jan 28, 2009

While I agree that there has been misguided appointments to refill vacant seats, this is, for the most part, a temporary thing as stated. I don't think, especially in times like these, we need to burden States with the cost of special elections. While "appointees" may not be whom the public would elect, they are appointed by officials elected to do the people's work. If they are poor appointees, then the people, obviously, elected poor officials - which is NOT uncommon in these United States. Let them live with the temporary appointee and change it during the regular election. That is a fair, cheaper and quicker alternative to representation than a special election - which probably would be "bought," anyway, by the party or candidate with the most money to spend. Leave well enough alone. The States have the ability to control how this action is conducted already under current law. More rhetoric and such a law would add nothing and, probably, make matters worse. Even elections are not the answer to being well represented in this day and age.

Joanne F.

3:17AM PST on Jan 28, 2009

Maybe we should be a lot more careful about who we pick for Governor

Dana R.

9:46PM PST on Jan 27, 2009

A condition should be included that defines a time remaining in the term of the vacant seat for which an election must be held. With a short time, say 3-4 months or some such time, there might be too little time for an election to be held. However, some representation should exist in the senate for the people of the state, since some very important legislation could be under consideration. In such a case, appointment by the governor may still be advisable.

Rosemary G.

9:33PM PST on Jan 27, 2009

I could not but agree more.Just wondered why Governors would have that kind of Power. After all they are only Public Servants.
It is WE the People who should do so because the Governors are on our Payroll.

Lori C.

7:46PM PST on Jan 27, 2009

AGREED!

Melvin T.

7:27PM PST on Jan 27, 2009

It's a case of which is worse, the voters or the governor of Illinois. The voters elected Rod Blagojevich for governor in the first place so their voting record is off.

5:21PM PST on Jan 27, 2009

Isn't the call for an amendment simply nonsense? The 17th Amendment, section 2 states:

"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."

This Amendment states that the state is to hold a special election UNLESS the state's legislature chose to write a law that the governor is to appoint a temporary replacement. This is precisely what the Illinois legislature did:

"(10 ILCS 5/25‑8) (from Ch. 46, par. 25‑8)
Sec. 25‑8. When a vacancy shall occur in the office of United States Senator from this state, the Governor shall make temporary appointment to fill such vacancy until the next election of representatives in Congress, at which time such vacancy shall be filled by election, and the senator so elected shall take office as soon thereafter as he shall receive his certificate of election.
(Source: Laws 1943, vol. 2, p. 1.)"

So, the United States constitution explicitly states that the people of each state are empowered to decide how they temporarily fill a Senate vacancy, and we, the people of Illinois did. Just leave well enough alone. If we are fed up enough then we'll change the law.