FEINGOLD TO INTRODUCE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ENDING GUBERNATORIAL APPOINTMENTS TO SENATE VACANCIES

[DainBramaged]

Sunday, January 25, 2009



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."

http://feingold.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=307275

[tekisui]

1. That's a great idea, but constitutional amendments are rare.

[originalpckelly]

2. We are in desperate need of constitutional level reform..

even if it takes a long time, we need to do it. This is a great idea, governors shouldn't have that much power.

[tekisui]

3. They shouldn't, really.

It makes no sense for a state official to appoint any;one at their discretion to a national office. I hope Feingold gets the support to do it.

[MADem]

15. Then STATES should take the power from the governors--not the FEDERAL government.

We did it in MA.

We switched from governor's appointments to special elections--and we only did it in the last few years, too. And we did it with a STATE legislature crafting a change, to the dismay of Mitt "I wanna be a Senator if Kerry Wins" Romney, not with a federal constitutional amendment.

Maybe they should "grassroots" that shit instead of trying to fling it at people federally. I don't think that amendment would fly by the Supreme Court, if it ever even got out of committee...

[Chulanowa]

16. Bingo

It should be handled on a state-by-state basis. Feingold's proposal will flop. Its only conceivable effect will be sending hte right into a brand new paroxysm of "The gubmint wanna take way mah state's rights!"

[JDPriestly]

17. An amendment to the Constitution gives the power to the governor unless the

state legislature decides otherwise. There is nothing wrong with changing this across the nation with another amendment to the Constitution. That way the change will be universal and not take years and years.

[MADem]

19. It's still a lousy idea. That amendment was a "housekeeping" product.

I think the purpose of that amendment was to standardize the methodology absent a system in place, which makes sense for states that perhaps don't have their legislative shit together. It does not "dictate" a methodology, it simply says, hey, if you guys haven't made a call on how you choose your substitute players, the governor does it. It does not say "You HAVE to do it THIS way."

When you start dictating to the states how they, themselves, MUST choose their replacements, without giving them the option--some states with a small population and small budget, might be quite happy to let the governor pick and spare the expense of an election--you're getting dangerously close to interfering in the affairs of individual states.

It's fine to say "If you have no plan, do it this way." It's an entirely different thing to say "We, the Federal Government, DEMAND that you states do what we say, the way we say it."

I think Russ is over the line here. I think the current top court might agree with me. Better to sell the idea to the states, rather than force it down their throats. IMO.

[JDPriestly]

26. Did you read the actual amendment?

Here is the whole amendment.

Amendment XVII

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.

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 shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxvii.html

Note that a state legislature can authorize the governor to appoint a temporary senator and then set a time for an election. So states do have a choice. We have to assume that the state made its choice not to set up a special election or elect a senator at the next convenient election. The law already gives a state a choice.

[TacticalPeek]

4. Doable.

Because state legislatures will have to ratify it, not governors.

[bluestateguy]

5. I'm sure the judiciary committee will get right on that

Just drop it off on the Chairman's desk:

[Peace_Sells]

6. Great.

This is great news I certainly hope it passes.

[WillowTree]

7. If the Federal government is going to mandate special elections...

....will the Federal government then pay for these special elections? Such elections to replace House members aren't that expensive for the States because they only involve one, relatively small congressional district. Forcing the States to pay for mid-term state-wide special elections to re-fill Senate seats is far more costly and so many states, such as Illinois in the current situation, are cash-strapped already. It could place a real burden on the States.

[SoCalDem]

11. I would think so..and in most states there are some kind of eletion or other every year anyway

We think of them as being every 4 years or every 2, but it's not that rare to have a special election in off years.....and the senatorial vacancies are not that common.. This year is an oddity, in more than a few ways..

[apnu]

20. Good point. Special elections are expensive.

I dislike DiFi for a lot of reasons and this makes me dislike her more.

[Sebastian Doyle]

8. It might have prevented the soap opera in Illinois, but the NY situation would have been the same

Schumer & the DLC would have arm twisted their puppet into the position one way or the other, just like they did in all the 2006 Senate contests. :(

[Spoon]

9. I always thought that gubernatorial appointments

were a sort of safeguard against crippling the government. For example, in the event of an asteroid/nuclear/whatever strike on Washington DC, governors could ensure representation in a fairly quick manner, unlike the length of time it would take to set up special elections (if that would even be possible depending on the scope of the disaster).

[IsItJustMe]

10. I like Russ, but it cost states lots of money to hold elections. BAD IDEA.

[NashVegas]

21. It's Not Just You

I don't think it's too much to ask for a less corrupt process. I think something like what RF is asking for is just another way of guaranteeing only millionaires will get in.

[JackRiddler]

24. Brilliant logic... you surely see where this is heading?

[babylonsister]

12. So? Who will pay for the special elections? nt

[cherish44]

13. I think state election proceedures should be decided by the states

That is all.

[MADem]

14. Well, if they pass that, and they couldn't pass the fucking ERA, that will say something.

I think Feingold is overstepping here. It's up to states to conduct their own elections, and always has been--it's why we've had fuckups like FL and Ohio to look back on, not so fondly. Unless the Feds are going to go to a national election system, separate from the state election system, for federal officeholders, and standardize it, and fund it fully, I just don't see the federal government DICTATING to the states how things should be done to be valid at all. I don't think this Supreme Court would sit on their hands about it, either.

In MA, we used to have the "governor picks" system, but our legislature, of their own initiative, took it away from the governor and mandated special elections instead (so Mitt Romney couldn't appoint himself if Kerry won in 04). Ted Kennedy tried to get 'em to change it back to a governor's appointment when his brain cancer became apparent, because he wanted Deval Patrick to appoint...his WIFE...oh yeah, no nepotism there... to his seat. Yes, really. I was appalled, myself. We don't really "know" Vicki like we knew poor Joan, either. The idea was a lead balloon from the git-go--kinda like the Caroline idea. The legislature was having none of that.

You can't really TELL a state how to pick a replacement Senator, or demand that they hold an election, particularly if you aren't gonna PAY for the election. The Senators and Representatives represent THE STATE "to" the Federal government....the Federal government shouldn't have any role in how the state chooses their Congresspeople.

Feingold's heart is in the right place, but IMO he is WAY outta line, here. I don't think he's thinking this through.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

18. shows that Feingold does not understand why the Senate

exists in the first place...well, no one gets it...we might as well just do away with states altogether...they have no power anyway at the federal level...

sP

[lonestarnot]

22. Isn't that what federalism is all about?

:shrug:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

23. the senate was purposed to be the STATE's voice

in Federal gov't and it simply no longer is. Taking away the power of governors to select replacement senators further erodes this original view. At the very least, i would think letting the legislature pick replacements would be acceptable...but special elections? might as well do away with states altogether...

sP

[MADem]

25. I agree with the bulk of your argument, but I'd tweak it to say

"Taking away the power of STATES to decide how they select replacements further erodes the original view."

In MA, we used to let the governor name replacements. When everyone thought Kerry would win, and Romney would name himself, we changed the rules via the legislative process. Romney was pissed, but there was nothing he could do about it.

Of course, when Ted got his first public seizure, he wanted the legislature to change the rule back AND name his wife Vicki to his seat. He was told "Thanks, but no thanks, Teddy." That was a bit er, ... NERVY of him, I'd say. Most people in MA know him, but they don't know shit about her, except that she got him off the sauce and doesn't let him overeat too much.