Sen. Feingold to Introduce Constitutional Amendment on Senate Vacancies

[TeamJordan23]

The Wisconsin Democrat wants special elections, rather than governors' appointments, to fill empty Senate seats.

“The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end."

Says he will introduce the amendment this week.

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, issued the following statement today on plans to introduce an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to end appointments to the Senate by state governors and require special elections in the event of a Senate seat vacancy.

“The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end. In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people. I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute. As the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing on this important topic soon.”

http://thepage.time.com/2009/01/25/sen-feingold-to-introduce-constitutional-amendment-on-senate-vacancies/

[LakeSamish706]

1. I like Sen. Feingold, but the one problem I see here is the cost of these elections.....

Especially in these times, no States can afford special elections.

[skepticscott]

5. One possible solution

would be to conduct such an election by mail (with mailings done free by the USPS). Ballots for each registered voter could be barcoded in some way to prevent duplication. There would be some logistics to work out, but with a little inventiveness I think the problems could be solved. Elections by mail have been done successfully.

[rvablue]

17. Oregonians do it already, so, yeah, it can be done. Interesting idea. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

20. Those elections would not be free.

It would still cost to have the ballots counted and it would still cost the taxpayers to have the mailing postage free.

[skepticscott]

23. Definitely not free

but probably cheaper than a normal election where you have to physically organize hundreds of polling places and voting machines. And having the mailings free would take some of the financial burden off of state or local governments.

[Hutzpa]

21. I like the

barcoded mail out to constituents, it will deter duplicates but
the data based has to be some kind of Fort Knox, otherwise some
wise ass would just walk right in.

[frazzled]

6. As long as you are doing cost-benefit analyses ...

I am sure we could come up with detailed arguments as to the costs of NOT holding special elections, in terms of lost revenues to states from ineffective senators, or loss of a state's prestige, etc.

In the end, this is not about costs (today's op-ed in the Times lists some ways, like runoff voting, that could curtail costs) but about representation in a democracy.

I don't want hasty special elections, but I think a six-month time frame between a resignation and the primary phase of a special election is not unfeasible. Let governors appoint an interim figure, but one who can not gain enough incumbency in six or eight months to derail other good candidates.

[LakeSamish706]

8. Yep, Good points.... n/t

[CreekDog]

13. Yes, states can afford the elections if the alternative is non Democratic means of filling vacancies

what you are suggesting is penny wise, pound foolish.

secondly, the cost of a special election is probably about $5 per person.

the state can afford this expense to protect people's enfranchisement.

[4lbs]

50. Since it involves a Congressional seat, why not have the Federal government pick up the tab?

The cost is what, 25 or 30 million per special election?

[Botany]

2. Russ is good!

[awoke_in_2003]

29. For some reason...

I decided to check out your profile. How is that hobby coming along? :)

[Botany]

35. Doing Fine

My 85 lbs Black Lab gets beat up by a 20 lbs female border collie .... :rofl:


Except once my son 13 @ the time was walking the lab and a "creepy man" came
up to talk to my son .... the dog attacked the man and he ran away ... dog got
a pound of bacon when he got home.

[awoke_in_2003]

38. I love labs...

and though they are playful they still know jackasses when the see them.

[Botany]

51. They are very strong and powerful animals (especially the males)

.... but 99.5% of the time most of them are real babies but in a few
cases they are as tough as they come.

BROOMFIELD, Colo. — A woman in northern Broomfield said her 3-year-old yellow lab,
Rufus, is a hero for fighting off two coyotes that ran from the nearby open space and
latched onto her right arm Thursday morning.

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/jan/15/broomfield-woman-reports-coyote-attack/

************



BTW I tried to use this book in training my new lab ..... he chewed it up as a pup :rofl:

[Critters2]

3. The problem in Illinois could have been avoided if people had taken

their electoral responsibilities more seriously. Blagojevich should never have been the nominee in the last gubernatorial election. Keeping an incumbent on the ticket just because he's incumbent makes no sense, when there's evidence of corruption and incompetence. Party leadership and voters need to think more carefully of the consequences of who we nominate and who we elect.

[cyclezealot]

12. Ill is odd.

They often produce excellent senators. But, their governors have a tradition of corruption. So many end up in the joint after their governorships.. Blogo is not unique, whether they be GOP or Dem... Why.?. State politics maybe machine oriented like Cook County/ DuPage County.?> ... But, Google new links to Both Blogo and the GOP opponent. Ms. Topinka. Both Blogo and Topinka were thought to be machine oriented candidates. Neither great choices. Remember, Blogo was re-elected even tho his poll ratings were under 20% .

[KharmaTrain]

37. Blago Won A Primary...Both Times

So are you saying that voters in Illinois didn't take their electoral responsibilitys serious? I vote for Blago in 2002 based on two things...one was a fairly Progressive record in the House and the corruption of the GOOP...there was no way I would ever vote for a repugnican. In 2006, I had lost faith in Blago...like many did...and voted for Paul Valas...sadly not enough voters felt the same way. In Novemebr, I didn't vote for Governor at all...my "protest"...about the process. But in both elections, Blago won fair and quare...his record was out there for all to see...and many felt his development of an Illinois S-CHIP program made him a good guy....especially if it was your child that was now getting health care coverage.

The Illinois situation was according to the books...Blago picked Burris based on his constitutional responsibility. Had he not, that would have been yet another impeachable offense. In the end, Burris, while not stellar, was a far better pick than many of us expected out of Blago and the voters will have a say about who is their Senator in 2010. Blago will probably be out of office within the next two weeks.

[HereSince1628]

4. I love ya Russ but, that won't fly as far as a cheeseball.

The Congress isn't made up of rational politicians, it's made up of politician who rationalize.

That amendmend is akin to putting up an amendment to use mathematics to get congressional districts with the minimum perimeter to volume ration.

It's anti-political advantage. There isn't a politician out their that doesn't want to be able to use a political advantage when they have it. Whether its a governor of New York, or the mayor of Whaawhaatosa, WI they love making appointments.

[PBS Poll-435]

7. Sorry Russ. Not gonna happen

:eyes:

[MarjorieG]

9. Costs to candidates and winners result from name recognition. Need better governors.

[Still Sensible]

10. Nope, I've got to come down on the side

of states' rights on this one. The idea is just a knee-jerk reaction to what he perceives are one or more instances where he didn't get the result he preferred. Whether his beef is with Blago or Paterson, never mind the electorate will get to affirm those appointments or correct those mistakes in 2010.

[cyclezealot]

11. Federally mandated elections`----

In places like Calif are not cheap.. Will the Fed's pay for them.

[CreekDog]

14. what the hell?

sorry to take my frustration out on you, but what the hell is the purpose of our government if NOT to run elections???

is there any more fundamental thing our government does besides defense?

have you guys all lost your marbles?

not having elections because they are too expensive? :banghead:

in California we had a special election in 2005, it cost approximately 0.06%, yes, less than one tenth of one percent of the state budget.

and you want to say that we can't afford to have an election.

that's ridiculous.

[dkf]

15. Yeah its also expensive to get voting machines that work properly so we shouldn't do that either. nm

[cyclezealot]

16. part of my feelings.

Over the years before Blogo or N.Y., Gov. Paterson , the system has worked fairly well. Calif. is so broke. well.

[CreekDog]

18. in state after state, appointed Senators have failed to win election

that should tell you how well the current system works.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. Many of them do win re-election

And some of them don't because their predecessor resigned to take a cabinet position and the party in power always loses seats in the midterms.

[CreekDog]

44. but we wouldn't want to start having foolish elections would we

i mean, the chance to elect one's own Senator, that can't be worth anything. :eyes:

[Abq_Sarah]

46. Local elections are the purview of the states.

Senate races are not national elections and they shouldn't be run by the feds.

[CreekDog]

52. I was talking about government in general

you can split hairs over the federal v. state responsibilities during elections.

look at my other posts and you will see i refer to the costs of elections born to the states in question.

[LiberalFighter]

19. It is best for the states to determine the procedure they use in cases like this.

And accept the consequences for the short term. As long as there is an election at the next federal election it is a small price to pay.

If the citizens of the state want special elections to be held when elections are not generally held then they should petition their legislators for the law. Keeping in mind of the cost of such an election will be theirs to bear.


Wisconsin had the following elections

2008:
February 19 - Presidential Preference
April 1 - Justice of the Supreme Court, Appeals Court, Circuit Court, Referendums
September 9 - Primary for Congressional, State Legislators, District Attorneys
November 4 - General Election

2007:
February 20 - Primary for Courts
April 3 - Spring Election for Courts

2006:
February 21 - Primary for Courts
April 4 - Spring Election for Courts
September 12 - Primary Election
November 7 - General Election

2005:
February 15 - Primary Election
April 5 - Spring Election for State Supt of Public Instruction, SC Justice, Appeals and Circuit Court Judges, Referendum

That is 13 elections in a 4 year period.

Here in Indiana we have the primary in May and the general in November. For a total of 6 elections. During a 4 year cycle there are no regular elections the year after a Presidential Some are even suggesting that we should hold municipal elections during Presidential election years to save money. Hogwash on that!

In my district we have had 1 special election in the 20+ years I have lived here that was not held on a regular election day.

Wisconsin needs to reduce the number of elections they hold to a more reasonable number.

[Muttocracy]

22. I can see a temporary appointment, but I think there should be an election

if not a separate date, grouped together with some other primary/school board/whatever election within 6 months. And then that person should last until the end of the original term. For NY to have to run an extra election in 2010 is absurd - we're not saving money by not having an election, it's just delayed so as to be silly.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Pesonally I'm a fan of this particular subversion of democracy

I know that won't be a popular opinion here but that's genuinely how I feel. Governors can in certain circumstances appoint very good people to the Senate who otherwise just don't have the fundraising prowess to be elected. And it's not like there isn't a check on it. The people can elect a new Senator in the next election if they want to. They can also pressure their legislators to change the state's laws in this area if they wish to.

[Hansel]

26. This is going to run into state's rights issues with the supreme court.

But if I had my way, the person vacating the seat would be the one to pick their successor. It is something that they should be obligated to talk about during the campaign. Who would they choose to take their seat?

Perhaps there should be some sort of a "successor will" that names several candidates for the seat. If the seat holder is still alive, they name the successor, otherwise the governor names someone from the list.

[NYC_SKP]

27. "Pick their successor"? Are you sure about that?

First, it seems a bit more power than one person should have, to get to move on to a cabinet position for example AND pick someone singlehandedly to fill a senate seat? No no no.

And, suppose that person moving on is an asshat crazy biblethumping loonbasket? Then what?

We get TWO asshat crazy biblethumping loonbaskets!

[Hansel]

39. A bit more power than one person should have?

If they didn't leave the seat, they would still be in power. They were elected by the people to fill out a term. I don't see any reason why they cannot say during a campaign who they would pick as a successor and satisfy the voters. They won the seat through the voters and they are responsible for it. I really don't see the issue here.

If the voters elected an asshat biblethumping loonbasket, they would have had to live with the 1st one anyway until the next election had s/he not left the seat. If the person is thrown out of the seat, then that's a different story.

But I would rather have the person who vacated the seat because they were ELECTED to another position retain the trust that the voters gave them. I would trust them enough to make that decision if I voted for them in the first place. If the opponent won, well, elections have consequences.

[backscatter712]

28. Not if it's a Constitutional Amendment.

Write it as an amendment directly into the Constitution, and states rights are trumped. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

[Hansel]

40. It's nearly impossible to write something into the constitution anyway, and

I'm betting that nearly every state in the union will campaign hard against losing any of its rights to the feds.

[Pacifist Patriot]

33. Ouch and ouch!

Picking one's successor is anathema to the democratic process (one reason I support this particular move).

I this measure becomes a Constitutional amendment than it cannot be a state's rights issue with the Supreme Court. I agree state's rights may be a major impediment to this amendment being ratified by enough states, but if ratified becomes part of the constitution and therefore not subject to judicial review.

[Hansel]

41. Electing the person to the seat in the 1st place was the democratic process

If the voters trusted that person enough to vote them into office in the 1st place and they are leaving because they have been elected into another position, then the people have spoken. There is noting anathema to the democratic process because voters have already elected him or her to speak for them. I'm betting they will ask someone to fill the position who they know will vote on legislation the same way they would.

I have a problem with governors making that decision, however, especially when they are from another party. If the voters voted in a Democrat for a senate seat and the governor is Republican and appoints a Republican, I would have a problem with that. There are some checks and balances issues I have with that. Especially when it could shift the power in the Senate from one party to another. No one should have that much power.

There is not a chance in the world that states would give up their rights to Washington D.C. So I think that a Constitutional amendment has little to no chance of success. But hey, I've been wrong before. Not this wrong, but wrong.

[Renew Deal]

53. I agree about the "states rights issue."

There is no issue because it's in the constitution. It's up to the SC to interpret any contradictions, but I don't expect that.

[Hansel]

43. Nevermind. It's kind of stupid to run for office thinking you're not serving out your term.

I concede I didn't really think this through. Nevermind. Carry on. :crazy:

[ClassWarrior]

30. K&R

NGU.

[mopinko]

31. i am a little too cynical about some of this stuff. the thugs would love to see

a special election here in illinois.
i see the principle, but i also see 3 democratic governors pushed out of office, or about to be, by scandals that just don't bother me quite as much as, say, mark foley, or denny hastert's bribes from turkish drug lords, or... and then there was the matter of that guy who got a blow job.
whenever i see a scandal blow up, i ask my self why this guy, instead of that.
i am suspect of any laws that are intended to answer some scandal. they are too easy to create.

[LiberalFighter]

32. Consider that it may be two special elections instead of one.

In the case of New York there will be a special election to fill the position left vacant by Kirsten Gillibrand's US Representative spot.

And it wouldn't be possible to have both elections combined because it wouldn't be known if it is open until the first election is held.

[struggle4progress]

34. It makes sense: it's what we do with vacant House seats

[CK_John]

36. A poor solution looking for a problem. How many states need to be saved from themselves and how ofte...

has this come up since 1913 when senators started to get elected.

[Telly Savalas]

42. Evidentially states needed to be saved from themselves with the regular

election of Senators. Why should it be different to fill a vacancy? Call me nuts, but I think it strengthens democracy when millions of people choose their senator instead of having one person make that choice.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

45. these are called By-elections in the UK

[liberalpragmatist]

47. I think it's a good idea, but I think temporary appointments should be allowed

With the constitutional proviso that the states may - by any manner they choose - designate an "Acting Senator" to serve on an interim basis; this "Acting Senator" should be barred from running for a full-term.

I think, likewise, that states ought to be able to appoint interim "acting representatives" to the House in the event of a vacancy with, again, the "acting Rep" barred from running in the subsequent election.

Why do I say this? Because sometimes states need interim representation. And I worry about the continuity of government in a catastrophic situation, such as the destruction of the Capitol during, say, nuclear war. There really need to be some kinds of provisions for dealing with continuity of the legislative branch in those cases.

At the same time, you don't want interim representatives or senators to get an undue advantage. However, I doubt states could on their own bar their interim senators or representatives from running for a full-term, as the Supreme Court has ruled against state-issued term limits for congressional delegates (senators and representatives) and I would bet that would apply to this as well (barring them from a full term.)

If it were written into the Constitution, however, it could be permitted.

[Norrin Radd]

48. Movie remake: Mr Smith Doesn't Go to Washington

How about Vice-Senators?:+

[wyldwolf]

49. oh, did he not approve of Burris and Gillibrand?

:eyes: