I don’t know if this belongs here or MPSMIS, but
No real news on what the cause is, but what makes it so political is that Kentucky now has a Democratic Governor. Aren’t senators appointed by the governor when needed to complete a term?
Some states require the replacement to be from the same political party as the one leaving service and Kentucky is one of those.
I saw that too. Chances are, it was a TIA (minor stroke) or even a small seizure.
I see, not only of the same political party, but chosen from a list of three chosen by the leaders of that party.
Perhaps this is an opportunity for the Democrats to try, but what if we didn’t? Is the requirement that they are from the same party Constitutional? I mean, the Constitution states the requirements for Senators and political parties are not mentioned in the document, so does the Kentucky legislature get to decide additional requirements? I know the current SC Justices owe even more to McConnell than to Trump, but what would a truly conservative Constitutionalist decision be?
That makes a lot of sense actually. That prevents the governor for appointing someone that doesn’t represent the party or a person form the party temporarily jumping parties just for the appointment.
17th Amendment
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.
Most likely, under the 17th amendment, the legislature of a state can come up with any procedure at all for the executive to replace a senator.
If nothing else, though, I’d expect that the governor could drag out the process for naming a replacement.
I guess it depends what empowering someone to appoint a replacement means.
If it means give them virtually no choice of who to appoint, but perhaps retain the power to refuse to make the appointment demanded by the legislature, then I guess the Kentucky law is OK.
I think it’s fair to argue the options are to go without a senator until an election, or let the governor decide, but not anything else.
Governor Beshear is fairly popular in KY and is up for re-election this November. I doubt he’d want to play games with appointing a new senator even if it were in his power.
Play games? It is a duty of the Governor, is it not?
I think appointing a member of the same party is, something we often do not see in political circles, fair.
As @Jophiel stated, this probably won’t happen, but, damn, this would be deliciously ironic if it were to happen.
I don’t think it’s fair. Shouldn’t we wait until after the next election to let the people have a say in this?
The guy still has body heat, seems a bit premature to be talking replacement.
Maybe. Reptiles are cold blooded.
I just think it’s not fair to the voters to fill such an important position so close to an election.
I agree. In this particular instance, it won’t benefit Democrats, but that should not be the point. Let’s face it, if the party affiliations were reversed, Democrats (except for me!) would be howling if the governor tried to override a rule that a replacement must be from the same party/from a party-designated slate.
One thing that disgusts me about the current Republican Party is their cynical willingness to play games with the rules for short-term political advantage (Merrick Garland v. Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court appointments, for example). I’d prefer not to be such a hypocrite. It’s a fair rule and should be followed.
Sorry, I was referring to scenarios like party-switching or keeping the spot open for a year as a “Haha, remember when McConnell…” thing.
Saying “It’s only fair to wait until after the election so the voters can decide, wink, wink” would be a great way to convince KY voters to elect the Republican candidate in that election… which comes up in a few months (Kentucky has its gubernatorial election this year).
To be fair, the Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature also played games with the process, while Romney was governor, around the time of Ted Kennedy’s death. And I, for one, thought at the time that their game-playing was unseemly at best (though, yes, within the letter of the law).
There are several senators who have had major medical problems, including strokes, and they simply withdraw from Senate participation for months or perform their duties incompetently. Basically appointment of a replacement only comes up if they die.
Maybe Mitch McConnell and Diane Feinstein could agree to pair their votes.