There wasn’t even a Republican on the general election ballot last time there was an open Senate seat election in California, due to the jungle primary in that state.
This has been answered, but I’ll just add that even if there were such a law, Congress routinely exempts itself from laws it passes.
It is my impression that incumbency confers a significantly larger electoral advantage to a Member of Congress in the US than it does in most other democracies, so parties in the US are disincentivised against putting an incumbent out to pasture. Perhaps because the much larger importance of money in US campaigns.
Also US Congressmembers’ staffs seem to be large enough for the machinery of representing the district to keep running with most of the officeholder’ mind already gone.
I do not know how the US compares to other democracies in this regard but your impression is correct that incumbency provides a HUGE advantage to US candidates.
Ballotpedia covered all state races on November 8, 2022, as well as local elections in America’s 100 largest cities by population. In the 2022 general election, an average of 94% of incumbents nationwide won their re-election bids.[1]
Comparatively, in the 2021 general election, 86% of incumbents nationwide won their re-election bids. In the 2020 November election, 93% of incumbents were successful. - SOURCE
The value is not only incumbency, but seniority. The plum jobs with real power go to the people who’ve been there longest.
If e.g. Feinstein resigns, the person who replaces her whether by election or by appointment is all but certain to be a D. So there’s no partisan advantage or disadvantage to replacing her. But (at least prior to her abject dotage) she sat in powerful seats on powerful committees. Her replacement will be in the back of the line for that stuff. So the D’s lose a powerful senator( at least on paper) and gain a powerless Senator. Not a winning move.
That logic applies to every senator in every safe seat. The parties do not want churn, and doubly so in a closely divided congress.
Sure, but Feinstein’s term ends in 2025 (about 1.5 years). She has already said she will not run for re-election. So, that seat will be up for grabs and a newbie senator will be there anyway.
So, the Dems can appoint someone to finish her term and be an incumbent in the 2024 election or they can let it be a free-for-all in 2024.
I’d opt for the former if I were the Dems. Put someone the party likes in that seat now.
I agree that is the most sensible thing to do from here in May 2023. She probably should have been replaced about this point in her prior term if raw production was what mattered.
There’s probably quite a nasty knife fight happening under a tarp right now to cozy up to Newsom for that appointment. Just because you or I aren’t reading abut it doesn’t mean it’s not happening.
. If that incumbent wins in 2024 he or she will have seniority over other first time dems.
Given there is pressure on Feinstein to step down I wonder how much she and/or her handlers are trying to leverage that. Basically, Newsom doesn’t get to pick, she does (or her handlers). Otherwise, she sticks it out. Which may suggest why she isn’t budging…Newsom may be feeling it is his pick (I know it technically is…but politics).
That’s a really good point. Some value in that.
A vacant Senate seat from Illinois in 2008, and the process of filling it, is how we wound up with yet another of our Governors going to prison.
Ahh, the good old days, when sending a corrupt politician to prison wasn’t such a big damn deal.
Indeed – Feinstein herself was first elected to the Senate in 1992 on the same ballot as Barbara Boxer. But because Feinstein was running in a special election to fill the remainder of Pete Wilson’s term, she was sworn in immediately whereas Boxer had to wait until January. Giving Feinstein two months seniority over her fellow Californian.
I should probably start a new thread about this but, I gotta say, I find the whole “seniority” bit in congress maddening. The ONLY reason someone gets the best positions is they have been there longer? WTF? No merit? No expertise? Just, “I’ve been here longer,” is the qualification?
Madness.
/hijack
Yeah, the thing is that this is politically touchy stuff for the governor. Newsom already promised that if an appointment came open, he’d pick a Black woman. This was a defensive response to having appointed Alex Padilla to replace Kamala Harris for the last opening. But that was before Feinstein officially bowed out of another election cycle. Now the very black woman that would have been the most obvious appointment pick, Barbara Lee, is openly running to succeed Feinstein. Which means if Newsom appoints her she automatically gets the incumbency advantage in the next election, something neither declared candidates Katie Porter or Adam Schiff want.
But Newsom cannot safely back off that pledge without taking political damage. Which means he is between a rock and a hard place. He can try and appoint someone like Karen Bass or Maxine Waters in the hope they play caretaker. But many Black leaders in CA have already lined up behind Lee and they and Lee’s people will cry foul. Newsom is apparently already under a lot of pressure to endorse Lee outright over Porter and Schiff given his previous promise. He can appoint Lee, but then have Schiff and Porter screaming up his ass. Newsom is likely desperately hoping Feinstein holds on until the end of her term to save him from the fallout.
It actually has some logic to it. It’s a back stop against favoritism, the natural tendency of all political organizations. If you have clearly defined rules based on seniority, that is at least an objective fact. As opposed to an entirely subjective assessment of ability. It’s the main reason unions prefer to bake it into contracts to prevent bosses from playing divide and conquer.
Oh, the reason there are no Black leaders in positions of party leadership is sheer coincidence! Why, just by pure happenstance all of the white legislative leaders happen to be better qualified.
Interesting:
Her replacement (in committees, not in Congress) also has to wait for Republicans to stop threatening to filibuster the resolution implementing her replacement.
ETA: I suppose the seating of the new member of Congress could also be filibustered… but unlike other filibusters the Senate would be unable to address anything other than the credentials of the new Senator, grinding all Senate business to a standstill. That self-destructive behavior could potentially be used as leverage in negotiations for something Republicans want.
~Max
Italics mine.
I believe you misspelled “for the destruction of the USA as we know it.”
Seriously, overall I agree w your logic completely.
I do not believe that it is possible to filibuster the seating of a Senator. The Senate does not vote to seat the new member. Rather, a Senator-elect presents his or her credentials – consisting of the certificate of his or her due election or appointment from the executive of the state – and is entitled to be sworn in. So there’s no motion to filibuster.
A Senator may object to the Senator being seated. However, such objection may only be on the basis of the Senator-elect not meeting the Constitutional qualifications for the office.