Kennedy asked that someone be appointed to replace him, since Mass. shouldn’t be short its quota of representatives. Seems fair.
And a bit back they removed the possibility for Mitt Romney to fill a Democratic vacancy, and insisted on a special election. Seems fair.
And I don’t see these as contradictory. Because the intent is to have the people who voted for a Democrat get to keep one.
So, is there a third way besides governor appointment and new election?
Say, let there be a designee standing in the wings, sort of like the veep is in line followed by the speaker for a presidential vacancy. No appointment or election there.
Some states have laws that the Governor appoints a replacement, but that it has to be from the previous officeholder’s party, or that it has to be from a shortlist approved by that party. It still seems like that might be a problem, though… If Lieberman were to die, for instance, where would the governor find another member of the Connecticut for Lieberman party?
Wyoming has the previous officeholder’s party give the governor a list of three candidates, and he must pick one of them. If Connecticut had that, then the CfL committee would most likely tell Governor Rell to pick Lamont, since Lieberman never actually joined that party and it has since been taken over by people who hate him.
IMHO it would be to allow the governor to fill the vacancy, but s/he’d need to pick from a shortlist from the state committee of the late/resigned senator’s party (I don’t know how real independent candidates would be handled) and the newly appointed senator would only serve until a special election could be held (unless of course the general election is soon). I might even go so far as to prohibit the appointed senator from being a candidate in the special election.
I think the best way is to have a new election relatively quickly. Massachusetts law provided for an election in 145 to 160 days, which I think is longer than necessary. 90 days would probably do it. I don’t like appointments by governors and I also don’t care for the way the Democrats in Massachusetts have tried to game the system here.
^^This.
Supposedly the proposed change in Massachusetts to allow an appointment by the governor (till a special election can be held) would prohibit that appointment from participating in the special election.
Makes good sense to me. I see no reason a state should be low on representation for 5-6 months because someone dies (or leaves office early for whatever reason). Making it previous Senator’s party also makes sense and stops a lot of fuss. A special election will come soon enough and the other side can have their shot then. If it was Lieberman (who is independent) I’d say the appointee must come from the party the Senator last caucused with (in Lieberman’s case the Dems).
Au contraire. The people voted Romney as Governor in order to dispense the powers of the Governor, including the possibility of replacing a Senator. The legislature doing an end around that is wrong because it removes the power to do a task from the person the people selected to complete that task for purely partisan reasons.
I think temporary replacement for a Senator followed by an election (say if there are 1.5+ years left in the term) is the best way to do it. Even better if the temporary replacement is not going to be running for reelection.
treis, I submit to you that the responsibility of replacing a Senator should the occasion arise is not high on anyone’s list of criteria for voting for Governor.
While I understand the rationale for not wanting the appointee to run in the general election - such a person would have an windfall big advantage over the other potential candidates by being the incumbent - by prohibiting the appointee from standing for election that office becomes held by a politically connected empty suit who doesn’t have anything better to do, which is not the type of person I want representing me in the US Senate for even a short length of time.
Perhaps, but it is still a power of the office. I don’t think they voted Romney in so they could watch the legislature start taking powers from him.
I agree it was cheesy to nab that power away from the governor as they did.
Apparently though the governor could have appointed anyone and would have presumably appointed a Republican to a seat that had been held by a Democrat. Seems to me if the populace elected a Democrat to the Senate then a Democrat should finish out the term (or at least till a special election could be held).
So, allowing the Governor to make an appointment makes sense and forcing the Governor to appoint a Senator of the same party as the one who vacated the seat makes sense.
Special election in a few months and both sides get a fair shot at the seat.
Massachusetts may get it right this time.
Leaving a seat vacant for 5-6 months does not seem like a good idea. Not fair to the people of the state to lose that representation for that length of time.
Seems sort of circular. The people elected the legislature with the knowledge they had the power to delegate or not delegate the selection of a replacement senator to the governor. I don’t see why the shouldn’t be able to exercise that power, even if it’s nakedly for partisan advantage.
ETA: actually, schemes where the legislature requires the Governor to pick only certain candidates off a list seem vaguely unconstitutional. Here’s the relevant amendment:
So the legislature can allow the governor to pick a new Senator or they can make the State wait till a special election is held, it doesn’t say anything about them being able to limit the governor to some subset of possible appointments.
I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be able to. I’m just saying they shouldn’t unless they want to look like ridiculously partisan hacks.
Kennedy used his power twice to get his desire in front of the voters’.
Special election 90-120 days after the vacancy occurs, unless that puts it either after or within a few weeks of the next general election, in which case use that date instead.
To fill the vacancy in the meantime, have each Senator keep current an ordered list of at least three prospective emergency replacements, who will be asked (in the order given) if they are willing to take the Senator’s place until the special election, with the caveat that such replacement can’t run in the special election.
I, personally like ‘Party of the deceased gives three choices to Governor. Governor picks one.’
The only fair way is to take the next person from the jury duty roster.
My personal choice is that all Senate seat openings will be filled by fiat from me. However I can see where that may be problematic for others…
for now.
Well, it’s certainly partisan, but I don’t really see the problem with that. The Dem controlled Mass. legislature didn’t want a Republican in the Senate, but now they want a Dem to hold the seat, and they’re using their Constitutionally granted power to make it happen. Certainly it makes them partisan, but I don’t see that it makes them hacks.
You should appoint your horse.