Could a state elect it’s governor for a life term? Or legislators? Judges in some states (and at the federal level) serve for life.
Terms for governors and state legislators are set by the individual state constitutions. All have set terms. Some have term limits.
Unless the constitutions are amended, there cannot be a governor for life, but a governor can run as many times as he or she wants (unless there are limits).
Judges are different.
Is it allowed under the United States constitution for a state constitution to allow a governor to serve for life? Is it still a republican form of government if the chief exectutive serves for life (chosed in a free and fair election).
it’s = it is or it has
its = that which belongs to it
On with the show.
Sure it’s allowed. The Federal Constitution doesn’t determine or limit how the individual states run themselves.
I’m sure alphaboi knows that, Walloon.
Actually, that’s a good question. I’m not very familiar with the US Constitution, but I’ve never heard about it putting any constraints on State governments other than being republican in nature, as alphaboi mentions. And as far as I know, what constitutes a republican form of government has never been tested in US courts. On ther other hand, while a system where you have a governor or president (not monarch) serving for life can certainly be described as “republican”, I’m not sure that is the definition that was intended in the Constitution.
Actually, I believe alphaboi867 is referring to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which states in part, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. . .” So clearly the Constitution does set limits how states organize their governance. The question is whether a governor-for-life, elected in a free election, would still qualify as a “republican form of government.”
It is probably more accurate, and certainly more helpful, to say that the U.S. constitution does not prohibit a state from having a governor serve for life. But the point is, it’s not up to U.S. constititution, or any aspect of the Federal government, to determine this. So beyond knowing that it’s not prohibited, it’s meaningless to look to the U.S. constitution for guidance on the matter.
Why wouldn’t it be? While a lifelong term for the chief executive is a common feature of dictatorships, it’s not the defining feature. And whether it’s a republican form of government involves more than just the chief executive. Typically the representation is largely embodied in the legislature.
Practically speaking, and human nature being what it is, a lifelong term substantially increases the risk of a dictatorship developing. But in and of itself, such a term doesn’t make it one.
I think however, the governor-for-life amendment would have to allow (at the very minimum) for some sort of impeachment possibility.
One definition (Webster’s) of a Republican government is:
"a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law;
Furthermore the 14th amendment professes:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Its a stretch but on a challenge to the law by a registered voter of that state, the SCOTUS could rule that the election of a “governor-for-life” does abridge the rights of people to that state to have an elected government. While the governor may have been elected in the first place, the consideration that citizens may endure a lifetime without the ability to vote for or remove a governor does not necessarily constitute an elected government.
Well, the way I see it, the defining charactersitic of a republic is not the People’s right to elect executives, but rather their right to vote them out of office. Elections are a form of job reciew - a way to decide if the people in power are doing a good job. By that logic, a governer-for-life is inherently anti-republican.
Yes, the answer to the question has to be that the Supreme Court has not ruled on this issue, and so the answer is not known. The Constiution does not explicitly forbid a governor-for-life, but would lifetime tenure be inconsistent with a “repubican orm of governmnt”, both as the founding fathers understood it, and as we now understand it? I suspect the answer is that yes, it would be inconsistent.
No, it couldn’t happen. There’s region judges are elected or appointed to life terms, or very long ones (like 10 years). Judges are supposed to be able to carry out their duties without concern for the political consequences of doing so. Just as they should not be in the thrall of the lawmaking body, neither should they be in the thrall of the electorate.
With governors and legislators that doesn’t apply at all.
Actually, the Supreme Court has pretty consistently ruled that the decision on whether a state has a republican form of government must be resolved by Congress and the President. The principle was first established in Luther v. Borden, a case arising out of the Dorr Rebellion in Rhode Island. The court was asked decide if the charter government of Rhode Island, which extended the vote to only about 40% of white males in the state, could still be considered “republican” in nature. The court ruled that the matter was a political question and non-justiciable.
The closest legal caselaw to the “governor-for-life” scenario I can find comes out of the Progressive movement, when the question arose as to whether initiatives, referenda and other “direct democracy” changes to state constitutions were republican. The court upheld the non-justiciability of the issue in PACIFIC STATES TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. v. STATE OF OREGON.
So, ultimately, it would seem that the matter would get lobbed to Congress.
Actually, I’m not certain that the governor has to be elected at all. The key to “republican form of government” is that it is representative, which does not mean that you have to elect the executive, just the legislators. I don’t think there would be any constitutional barrier to a state setting up some sort of parliamentary form in which the state’s chief executive was more like a prime minister, chosen by the majority party or a coalition in the legislature.
The idea of “chief executive for life” is sort of incompatible with republican government in a practical sense, though. You’re presumably still allowing elections to change out the legislators. It’s a very strange idea to saddle a newly elected legislature with a governor that neither they nor the voters have chosen for the last 20 years. One way or another they’d get the system changed or find a way to work around it.
At any rate, states would seemingly be allowed a lot more latitude in their governmental organizations than they currently exhibit. They are remarkably similar.
According to that definition Sweden, Spain, and Japan are all republics.
So a voter’s rights are violated because they didn’t happen to be of age or live in said state when the election occured? Every citizen runs the chance of enduring a lifetime without the ability to vote for a certain government official. If lifetime terms aren’t constitutional how long could a term of office be be 10, 20, 50 years? And I never said there’d be now way to remove a governor from office. Impeachment would still be possible, maybe even some form of recall. At what point does republic end and elective monarchy begin?
[Hijack]
How do y’all feel about the contsitutionality of a US state having a “Chief of State” with a lifetime term? (A person who shows up at ribbon-cuttings, but has no political power. Wiki)
[/Hijack]
My guess would be that a Governor with a lifetime appointment would not be allowed, although the concept would be an easier sell with impeachment and recall provisions than without.
Fun hypothetical! I imagine states would move to a Nebraska-style unicameral legislature before considering lifetime executives. Dropping one legislative body has got to save a lot of money. The hard part would be having one body legislate itself out of existence. By “hard” I mean “impossible”.
Not impossible. The Legislative Council of Queensland voted itself out of existence in 1922. And at least one legislature/parliament has peacefully voted itself out of existence: the Parliament of Scotland in 1707.
Was the Legislative Council of Queensland a legislative body with strong powers – like the Senate of Australia – or rather a body that, while theoretically having real powers, rarely exercises them – like the Senate of Canada? I know the Legislative Council of Quebec dissolved itself in 1968, which is even more recent, but it was an example of the “second type” of upper chambers. It would be harder for “first type” chambers, which all American States with bicameral legislatures have.
Some states don’t require any action by the legislature to amend the constitution. All one needs to do is collect enough signatures on a petion.
Yes, the Queensland upper house would have been a relatively weak body, like the upper houses in Canadian parliaments. I suspect the abolition also involved strong party discipline among the majority in the parliament, and that’s rather less in the US than it is in countries with a parliamentary system. So perhaps it would be considerably more difficult in a state legislature in the US.