# Do states HAVE to have governors? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 22, 2000, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289 "2000-11-22T15:03:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/21 "2012-10-14T11:01:17Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Yes, I know this is a zombie, but I found it during a search. Is there anything preventing a US State from having a parliamentry form of Government? Not Constitutionally. Practically, a general unfamiliarity with the Westminster System and a general preference for home-grown solutions that have been proven to work would kill the plan before it could get off the ground. In particular, our parties, major and minor, are not accustomed to coalition-building (they’re accustomed to the ‘big tent system’, which is related in effect but not the same); major parties would be unfamiliar with listening to people from minor parties, and minor parties would be unfamiliar with anyone listening to them at all. Might be interesting to see what the local equivalents to the Monster Raving Libertarian Party do with the ability to introduce bills. ---
**Author:** ![USCDiver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uscdiver/32/354_2.png) [@USCDiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/USCDiver)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/22 "2012-10-14T11:31:18Z")
> [@bibliophage](#): > > North Carolina has a governor, but he has much less power than any other governor, since he can’t veto any legislation. I read this before realizing this was a zombie, but since this is The Dope and all… The NC Governor was given veto powers in 1996. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/23 "2012-10-14T12:01:10Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Not Constitutionally. Practically, a general unfamiliarity with the Westminster System and a general preference for home-grown solutions that have been proven to work would kill the plan before it could get off the ground. In particular, our parties, major and minor, are not accustomed to coalition-building (they’re accustomed to the ‘big tent system’, which is related in effect but not the same); major parties would be unfamiliar with listening to people from minor parties, and minor parties would be unfamiliar with anyone listening to them at all. Might be interesting to see what the local equivalents to the Monster Raving Libertarian Party do with the ability to introduce bills. I think the only occasion where we might see this happen is if a polity with an existing parliamentary government decides to apply for statehood. Like if Quebec finally gets fed up with Canada and decides they want to be fed up with the US instead, they’d probably want to keep their parliamentary structure intact. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/24 "2012-10-14T12:55:50Z")
A likelier scenario is Quebec separates and the Maritime provinces apply for US statehood. The have parliamentary governments with no fixed terms and I see no reason they couldn’t keep them. It is still a republican form of government. Whether the US would be interested is a different question (almost certainly not). ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/25 "2012-10-14T15:44:25Z")
Technically, Canada is not a republic; they still have a monarch and a governor who acts as the monarch’s representative. Personally, I think a completely parliamentary system, with unseparated branches of government, might be considered to be not “republican” within the meaning of the Constitution. Although the technical meaning of “republic” as it existed in the late 18th Century was generally intended to contrast with monarchy, it was also very strongly felt at the time that separation of powers was inherently necessary in governments derived from the authority of the people. Clearly, the intent of Art. IV, §4’s language was to distinguish what form of government the states would have from some other common form of government at the time; was the purpose of the language merely to prevent states from having kings? Or was the purpose to prevent states from having governmental systems essentially identical to that of England, from which we had split, king or not? As I pointed out back in post #2 (12 years ago!), the Supreme Court has deferred most of these issues to the judgment of Congress. If Nova Scotia’s residents suddenly decided they wanted the benefits of being United States citizens, and applied for admission of their “state” (probably Commonwealth, I imagine), it might be an interesting question whether Congress would insist upon a re-design of government to create legal separation of powers as a condition of admission. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/26 "2012-10-14T16:36:46Z")
One of the loonie perennial candidates for governor in Montana has as his entire platform that the state should go to a parliamentary form of government (the word he used was “premiership”, but his description is parliamentary). It was somewhat amusing to watch him debate: “What would you do to increase employment in Montana?” “I would institute a premiership.” “What would you do to protect Montana’s environment?” “I would institute a premiership.” ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/27 "2012-10-14T16:54:37Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Personally, I think a completely parliamentary system, with unseparated branches of government, might be considered to be not “republican” within the meaning of the Constitution. Although the technical meaning of “republic” as it existed in the late 18th Century was generally intended to contrast with monarchy, it was also very strongly felt at the time that separation of powers was inherently necessary in governments derived from the authority of the people. Clearly, the intent of Art. IV, §4’s language was to distinguish what form of government the states would have from some other common form of government at the time; was the purpose of the language merely to prevent states from having kings? Or was the purpose to prevent states from having governmental systems essentially identical to that of England, from which we had split, king or not? > > . Well, at the time the US Constitution was adopted, there was separation of powers in Britain, indeed separation specifically is something Montesique used to define the English and. British system of that time frame. Parliamentry democracy as we know it now is very much a product of the 19th century. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/28 "2012-10-14T18:46:31Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Technically, Canada is not a republic; they still have a monarch and a governor who acts as the monarch’s representative. Right, because, in practice, Canada acts more like Saudi Arabia than the US. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/29 "2012-10-15T00:09:35Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > A likelier scenario is Quebec separates and the Maritime provinces apply for US statehood. The have parliamentary governments with no fixed terms and I see no reason they couldn’t keep them. It is still a republican form of government. Whether the US would be interested is a different question (almost certainly not). I have occasionally wondered about the likelihood of this if Quebec did separate. The Maritimes would be quite isolated from the rest of Canada, and they might see it as a possible solution. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/30 "2012-10-15T01:02:50Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > I have occasionally wondered about the likelihood of this if Quebec did separate. The Maritimes would be quite isolated from the rest of Canada, and they might see it as a possible solution. How would they be isolated any more than they are now? Unless the separation went _very_ badly, there wouldn’t be a wall or anything. I really doubt the average person in New Brunswick drives to Ontario very frequently as it is. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/31 "2012-10-15T03:46:39Z")
Previous thread on topic: [Is There Anything To Stop A US State From Having A Parliamentary Style of Government](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=613688&highlight=parliament%2A) From 18 months ago, so would still be a zombie, just not as decayed a zombie as this thread. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/32 "2012-10-15T03:54:55Z")
> [@toadspittle](#): > > Would it be possible to have, say, an elected triumvirate of executives if the state wished it? Pennsylvania had a collective executive from 1776 to 1790. The [Supreme Executive Council of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Executive_Council_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Pennsylvania#Counsellors) was composed of a President, a Vice-President, and a Council of 12 elected members. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/33 "2012-10-15T04:10:01Z")
It is at least highly debatable what separation of powers means, to what extent the Constitution required it for the U.S., and to what extent it has actually been enforced over the history of the U.S.: > **[Separation of powers under the United States Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution)** > > Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws, in which he argued for a constitutional government with three separate branches, each of which would have defined abilities to check the powers of the others. This philosophy heavily influenced the drafting of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept dist... ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/34 "2012-10-15T12:59:47Z")
> [@BobT](#): > > Many states, in particular New York, used to elect governors through the legislature in the early years of the Republic (1790s). [NY always elected it’s governors by popular vote](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_gubernatorial_elections#1777-1820). Senators were selected by the legislature until 1912. ---
**Author:** ![ekedolphin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ekedolphin/32/10003_2.png) [@ekedolphin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ekedolphin)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/35 "2012-10-15T16:01:43Z")
> [@toadspittle](#): > > Yeah, but a grand high poobah is the same as a governor, save in name… unless you elect him differently (parliamentary-style via the legislature? or appointed for life?) or unless there is more than one poobah in the executive seat (a ruling council of poobahs). If the head of a state’s executive branch was actually given the title, “Grand High Poobah”, I would never, _ever_ miss a chance to vote. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/36 "2012-10-15T16:47:51Z")
Well according to the US Congress in 1863 as upheld by SCOTUS in _Virginia v. West Virginia (1871)_, a republican form of government may consist of a rump session of delegates self-appointed from selected sections of the state. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/37 "2012-10-15T18:04:27Z")
Does the Constitution set limits on terms for the Governors of States? For instance, if one of the States decided to change its constitution and allow Governors to be elected for 20 year terms would the feds step in? How about Governor for Life? (I’m sure making it hereditary would be a no no). ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/38 "2012-10-15T18:25:42Z")
There is no constitutional limit on term lengths or limits for state elected officials. One could make a strong argument that appointing a governor for life would not constitute a republican form of government, though. My guess is the courts would be reluctant to rule on this matter and declare it a political question, deferring to the judgment of the state legislature. ---
**Author:** ![GreasyJack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/df705f/32.png) [@GreasyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreasyJack)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/39 "2012-10-15T22:34:31Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > One of the loonie perennial candidates for governor in Montana has as his entire platform that the state should go to a parliamentary form of government (the word he used was “premiership”, but his description is parliamentary). It was somewhat amusing to watch him debate: “What would you do to increase employment in Montana?” “I would institute a premiership.” “What would you do to protect Montana’s environment?” “I would institute a premiership.” Back before he was a perennial candidate to various statewide and national office, Kelleher actually did get elected to the state constitutional convention that rewrote the state constitution in the early 70’s. He proposed the parliamentary system, there were a few hours of debate over it and (IIRC) he actually got something like 15% of the delegates to vote for it. I don’t think any of the various experts on state government who were present at the convention ever raised the objection that it wouldn’t be allowed by the federal constitution, so I’m assuming it would have been. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/40 "2012-10-15T22:58:02Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Pennsylvania had a collective executive from 1776 to 1790. The [Supreme Executive Council of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Executive_Council_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Pennsylvania#Counsellors) was composed of a President, a Vice-President, and a Council of 12 elected members. Damn you. 😛 I was going to point that out. The most famous President being Benjamin Franklin. The proper name for that type of government is the [directorial system](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorial_system), and there’s nothing in the Constitution stopping a state from using it. Switzerland is inarguably a republic, & uses the system for all levels of government. The closest the US Consitution gets to mentioning the office of state governor is reference the “executive authority” of a state; which can easily be a premier or executive council. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289.md?page=3)