Replacement senators should be elected, not appointed, state lawmaker says
The change of administrations in Washington has created a lot of change in the U.S. Senate.
With the election of former senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Joe Biden of Delaware, and the selection of former senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Ken Salazar of Colorado to the Cabinet, heavy turnover is occurring in the Senate. But none of the new senators have been endorsed by voters at the ballot box.
In each case, the governor of the state where the vacancy was picked the replacement. Each selection has provoked criticism.
In Colorado, Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter selected Michael Bennet, the 44-year-old Denver schools superintendent, for the Salazar vacancy. The Washington Post called Bennett the “greenest and least well-known member of the Senate.” In Delaware, former Gov. Ruth Ann Minner named longtime Biden staffer Edward E. Kaufman to the seat. Kaufman has said he will not run, and most observers believe that Beau Biden, the vice-president’s son who is serving in Iraq, is the leading contender. In New York, Gov. David Paterson danced around the Caroline Kennedy issue and finally selected Kirsten Gillibrand, an upstate congresswoman who is sure to face a challenge from her party’s liberal wing.
And the Illinois situation, where former Gov. Rod Blagojevich was impeached after being recorded effectively trying to sell the Senate seat, is the most bizarre of all.
Another example could be on the way. If New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg accepts Obama’s expected offer to be commerce secretary, the Democratic governor of New Hampshire will get to pick a replacement senator, bringing the number of Senate Democrats to 60 – enough to block a filibuster.
None of this sits well with Del. Saqib Ali of Montgomery County. He wants Maryland to be one of the states (there are currently nine, he says) to mandate a special election to fill Senate vacancies. He’s prepared a bill that would do that.
Ali’s bill has the backing of Common Cause of Maryland and picks up on an idea offered by Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who has called for direct election of Senate replacements. Ali’s bill would make Feingold’s suggestion a reality, at least in Maryland.
It’s a populist idea, but I don’t see the Assembly following the trail on this one. What’s your view? Is Ali’s proposal a good idea?
***Note to readers: This blog posting has been modified to reflect that fact that several states currently allow direct election of Senate replacements. Thanks to those who pointed out the need for this alteration.***
Comments
Actually Alaska requires an election of a Senate replacement after the controversy surrounding former Republican Governor Frank Murkowski selecting his daughter to fill his Senate vacancy.
Posted by: Martin Watcher | February 2, 2009 5:41 PM
I don't really have a problem with Senators being appointed. I think that's something to consider when voting for governor. The governor is an elected official by the people of his state. It would seem to make sense that his choice would be a fair representation of the state's wishes. It's not like these are lifetime appointments, which can't be undone. Unlike say United States Supreme Court Justices who carry more weight in my mind that a new junior Senator.
Plus, who will keep paying for these elections? Donald Praisner from MoCo had the right idea even in a time of crisis in his life as he battled cancer. While he was an appointed replacement himself, he at least was aware that the financial burden is palpable.
Also, what would the guidelines be for these elections so far as what's the cutoff for importance? Is it really mission critical to have a special election every time someone dies, get's promoted or get's convicted? If so, then is there one special election per year? Is there one as needed? If so we could be in a perpetual election cycle, with perpetual and redundant expenses.
Appointments aren't perfect, but the Constitution allows for it in many cases based on the principle that the person making them is elected and can be held accountable. Sometimes less is more.
Posted by: James C | February 2, 2009 6:02 PM
The states have the right to make the law they want in replacing Senators. Remember, the legislature at one time actually appointed the Senators, they were not elected at all.
I just do not trust the Maryland government to do ANYTHING right.
Posted by: AnotherWatcher | February 3, 2009 9:36 AM
Actually David, 9 other states (including Alaska, Massachussetts, Wisconsin) hold special elections in case of US Senate Vacancies.
Posted by: Saqib Ali | February 3, 2009 12:47 PM
Thank you, Martin Watcher and Del. Ali, for pointing out the other states that already allow for such elections. I've updated the post, and apologize for the inaccuracy.
-- David
Posted by: David Nitkin | February 3, 2009 1:03 PM
While he's at it, Delegate Ali should also put in a bill to mandate special elections to fill vacancies in the body in which he himself serves: the MD House of Delegates. Vacancies there and in the MD Senate are filled with appointments by party activists and the governor. If special elections are good for the US Senate, they're good for the MD legislature, right?
Posted by: Brandon | February 4, 2009 9:26 AM