Implications of resigning from House of Representatives

OK - your friendly neighbourhood Canuck (me) needs an American politics lesson.

What are the implications of Gabrielle Giffords resigning her seat in Congress? What is the point of resigning vs. just staying on sick leave and doing what she can, when she can, even if that’s only a tiny fraction of what she would ordinarily be doing? You guys don’t have byelections (elections for an individual member not occurring during a full-blown election) like we have when necessary, so wouldn’t her seat just become completely vacant and the people that elected her have no representation at all?

We do. There will be one in April.

:eek: Oh! I didn’t realize you guys ever did that! Shows how much I know about politics south of the border!

It’s based on State law. Every State does it a little bit differently. With House terms only being two years, some States just allow the current Governor to appoint a replacement representative to fill out the rest of the term. Some States I think might just allow the vacancy to continue until the next regular election (although there has been moves away from this), and some States (like Arizona, apparently) have special elections.

With Senate terms being six years, many States will allow a Governor to appoint a temporary replacement if the seat is vacant in the early part of a term, but a special election will be required to find someone to fill the rest of the term at some point.

And just so there is no confusion, the winner of the special election serves until the end of the year. The seat will be on the ballot in the general election in November.

Actually it appears that while Senate vacancies, due to imprecise wording in the Constitution, can be filled by differing means throughout the country, Article I is much more precise in specifying how House vacancies must be filled. They can apparently only be filled by a special election and it seems that while State law gets to govern how the special elections work, the general time frame is to get the seat filled within 100-120 days.

House seats can only be filled by election:

For Congress that’s always how special elections end up. Otherwise over time the entire House would have a fragmented election schedule, with varying two year terms from district to district.

In the Senate, it was very explicitly by design that roughly one third of the Senate be up for election every two years (they had to stagger the terms of the first Senate, with some serving 2 years, some 4, and some 6) so special elections to fill Senate voids can only award the remainder of the term to keep things properly synchronized.

While I love the Founders, they made the relatively boneheaded decision of making Presidential succession ill defined. It says that the Vice President assumes the duties of the Presidency upon incapacity or death of the President (although how incapacity could be ascertained or determined is not specified whatsoever); but it also provides for a special election that could be held if both offices are vacant. Even worse, under some interpretations of the original text of Article II, it could be inferred that the Vice President himself could be viewed only as an Acting President and that Congress would have to craft law to establish a special election to fill the Presidential vacancy if a President died in office.

If we had gone down that route, then whoever would have been elected would have been elected to a full four year term, since nothing in the Constitution would have allowed for electing someone to the Presidency for a partial term. This would have permanently changed the synchronization of our elections and could have resulted in Presidents being elected in odd numbered years or other such foolishness.

As it actually played out, the first man to succeed to the Presidency, John Tyler, basically insisted he be sworn in as real President and argued that it was his right under the Constitution. My understanding is he basically walked into the White House, swore the oath, and took over. Not everyone agreed with it and it wasn’t entirely settled constitutionally, but no one really contested it so the precedent was established. Tyler’s motivations primarily were the fact that he knew his own party wouldn’t have even nominated him in a special election, so this was his only way to get into the White House. As it turned out, his extreme unpopularity with both Democrats and Whigs resulted in him basically getting very little done as President. He was called “his Accidency” by his political opponents (who basically was everyone on both sides of the aisle) and was formally expelled from his own political party while in office.

In the next Presidential election he established a third party to try and keep the White House, and possibly moreso to hurt the Whig party’s chances of winning (as he was probably still fairly unhappy about being expelled from the party.) It ended up that Tyler instead of running a campaign just spent a lot of time with his new wife, and he found that he had no real public support as a candidate. Finally he withdrew from the campaign when the Democrats informed him that his candidacy probably hurt them more than it hurt the Whigs, as Tyler’s views throughout his life were much more in line with the Democratic party than the Whigs (which is a big part of the reason he never got along with his own party) any split he caused would probably be in Democratic voters.

Later in life Tyler injured his already horrid reputation by openly embracing Virginia’s secession and becoming a member of the Confederate Congress. Although he died early in the war before the Confederate Congress’s opening session.

Yes. I corrected myself one minute before your post. :slight_smile:

Whenever a new state joins the Union the terms of it’s first 2 Senators are staggered as needed to keep 1/3rd of the Senate being up for election every other year.

Whoever wins the special election is the incumbent, which usually confers advantages in the next election. The winner also has additional seniority in office, which still counts for something in Congress, although not as much as it used to.

That’s usually true, but once in Ohio (I mentioned this in the other thread), the winner of the special election was the Congresswoman-elect. Stephanie Tubbs Jones died in September 2008, and the special election to replace her was on November 18th, two weeks after the general election for the next Congress.

It’s a shame that the house seat’s office has to stop work when Giffords resigns. Her staff has done an excellent job filling in and handling constituents needs & requests during the past year. As I understand it, the staffs’ jobs end when Giffords hands in her resignation from the house.

As it is, there will be at least a three month gap where nothing gets done. For example a veteran needing help on a VA claim dispute or perhaps someone needing a Social Security claim resolved. The staff handles needs like this every day. I’d guess the other Arizona representatives will pitch in and meet some onstituents needs from Giffords’ district.

To finish my thought…

It would be better if the chief of staff and office staff handled routine constituents needs until a new person is elected in the special election.

I’m not sure if the Arizona office will literally shut off the lights and lock the doors for several months or not.

Hopefully her staff gets transferred in name only to another Representative so they can continue what they’re doing and be already up to speed when the new Representative is sworn in.

Not sure if dates have been set. But I bet the effective date of her resignation and the date of the election will be very close, and the new rep takes office as soon he/she can get to Washington after the election is certified. So the down time will be in days not weeks. And normally they will keep most of the staff at the begining.

I found this… Snnipe nailed it. :wink:

Actually, this isn’t the case. The Clerk of the House will take over administration of her offices in Washington and her district, and the staff members will continue to be able to work on constituent matters. They will continue under the supervision of the Clerk until her successor takes office, who is free to retain or release any or all of them.

Yes, it becomes the “Office of the 8th Congressional District of Arizona,” (they change the signs) and the staff can stay on, but they are limited to helping constituents navigate the federal bureaucracy (e.g., ironing out problems with social security), giving tours of the Capitol, and things like that. They are prohibited from working on anything related to policy or legislation, and mostly they work on their resumes.

Don’t worry, Saint Cad, her staff will either be kept on by whomever replaces her or will find themselves at the front of the line for any Democratic staff openings in Congress over the next few months.

Just because no one has said it thus far, I’ll be the [hopefully] first to point out that, here in Illinois, empty Senate seats are simply sold to the highest bidder. Although the Justice Department isn’t fully on board with that idea. :wink: