On April 8th, 1913 the 17th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, providing for the direct election of U.S. Senators by the people. But it also allowed for the governor of each state to appoint an interim senator when vacancies occurred (if the state legislatures were inclined to grant that power). The result is that most states allow their governor to make interim appointments to the Senate. Some states, like Wyoming, place restrictions on the governor’s choice. When Sen. Craig Thomas died in 2007, the Democratic governor of Wyoming was compelled to pick a replacement from the same party. He chose Mike Barrasso. I believe Arizona has a similar law. Some other states require that a special election be scheduled.
Sen. Russ Feingold, who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on The Constitution, has introduced an amendment to the Constitution that is intended to resolve these ambiguities and avoid the kind of problems that arose in Gov. Rod Blogojevich’s appointment of Roland Burris.
The proposal states: “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.”
Feingold’s subcommittee just voted to approve this amendment by a 6-3-1 tally. Here’s how the vote went:
Russ Feingold (D-WI) [Chairman]- Yes
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)- No
Dick Durbin (D-IL)- Yes
Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)- Pass
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)- Yes
Arlen Specter (D-PA)- Yes
Tom Coburn (R-OK) [Ranking Member]- Yes
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)- No
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)- Yes
John Cornyn (R-TX)- No
Of further interest, John McCain is a co-sponsor of the proposed amendment, and Harry Reid opposes it as an intrusion into state’s rights.
I have no idea why Feinstein opposes it or why Ben Cardin couldn’t make a yes or no decision. I don’t think the language of the amendment is necessarily the best, so I could see voting no on that basis. But I can’t see a problem with the principle involved or the purposes, which are to reduce corruption and to make the Senate more democratic.
It may be that the amendment could be improved by articulating some wiggle room and allowances for circumstance. Special elections are very expensive and most states have complex rules for when in the cycle they are to take place or be waived. I think Feingold wants to root out any incentive for corruption, which is why the amendment makes no allowances for special circumstances like when a Senate vacancy occurs fairly close to a scheduled election but no close enough to allow for a timely filling of the vacancy.
I’d be interested to learn the basis for Cardin and Feinstein’s votes.
Constitutional amendments typically don’t make allowances; they’re pretty direct.
that’s true. But that doesn’t necessarily make them better.
Personally, I think they ought to repeal the 17th Amendment.
Feinstein would oppose it simply because it represents a change from existing circumstances.
If it passes Congress, doesn’t it next have to be ratified by the States. I would venture that the States are where this will bog down, especially in states where one or the other political parties have a firm lock on power.
This will go right into the hopper.
States are not going to ratify this. Florida? Look at 2000. And Ohio in 2004.
I’m not following your reasoning.
States’ rights? While I’m not entirely hostile the concept, any post-1865 mention of the topic is quite anachronistic. States don’t have rights — they’re federal administrative divisions that can be created and destroyed at the discretion of the federal government. If this is not so, would someone explain to me when Virginia can expect the return of its western counties?
Of course, we live in a country where corporations are magically people, so why not states?
I look forward to the day when issues like this can be addressed by reasonable people who understand that when one draws a closed curve on a piece of paper and gives it a name, nothing has actually changed out in the real world.
.
Click on above link and listen to
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Seems like it would be simpler and clearer to just elect a standby during the regular election. Or have the senator name a successor upon being sworn in.
Electing a standby seems a bit much – it’s a fairly rare occurrence in a state for a Senate seat to go vacant mid-term. It usually takes a death, a cherry appointment to the President’s cabinet, or a desire to run for a different office to dislodge a Senator from their seat before a term is expired. Even scandals usually cause them to either resign or get booted from office at the next election, not mid-term.
And having the guy holding the office pick his own successor strikes me as a worse idea than letting the governor appoint someone. At least the governor will sometimes have to worry about re-election[] – almost anything that pushes a Senator out of his/her seat is going to preclude the voters punishing him/her at the ballot box.
[
] Re-election worries not valid in stupid states like my own that bought into the myth that term limits, which guarantee non-accountability to politicians, would somehow make their politicians more responsive.