Democrats To Upend Seniority System In Senate: Brown

[babylonsister]

Sounds like a good plan. Any opinions on this?

Democrats To Upend Seniority System In Senate: Brown
Ryan Grim


Senate Democrats intend to elect the chairs of committees when the next Congress convenes, which could upend a tradition that prioritizes seniority over party loyalty, legislative effectiveness or any other merit-based criteria.

During a question-and-answer session with progressive media, video blogger Mike Stark asked lawmakers why the Democratic caucus hasn't yanked Sen. Blanche Lincoln's chairmanship of the Agriculture Committee, considering her opposition to Democratic legislative efforts. In Arkansas, her gavel is a top selling point as she battles a progressive primary challenge.

"We're going to elect committee chairs next year," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). "The current chairs that are sitting there now understand that we'll be electing chairs next year," he added, saying the idea had been cleared with Senate leadership.

Under current rules, members of the caucus can weigh in by objecting to an overall Senate organizing resolution, but don't have an up-or-down vote on each chair.

Historically, the seniority system has been one of the chief obstacles to legislative progress. It is more difficult to continuously get elected to the Senate -- or to get elected at a young age -- in a big state, rather than a small state. That imbalance means that the most senior members of the Senate are almost all from rural, conservative states, giving them outsized influence in a chamber where they already have outsized influence because of minority protections and the two-per-state makeup of the chamber.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10/democrats-to-upend-senior_n_493812.html

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

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_03/022852.php

snip//


When seniority rules, members have few incentives to care what their party thinks. As such, Dems end up with far-less progressive members in key posts -- Blanche Lincoln at Agriculture, Kent Conrad at Budget, Max Baucus at Finance, Tim Johnson at Banking -- whether the caucus' rank and file like it or not. They can vote against party priorities, and even side with Republicans on filibusters, and face no real consequences. Shifting away from seniority would help the party function more like ... a political party.

Brown added, "I'm not predicting who or {that} anyone will be defeated, but they're certainly going to get a message. And one or two might {be defeated}. There's going to simply be a yes or no. Should Tom Harkin stay as chairman of health? Yes or no? And it will be yes for him, of course. But for some others, it may not be."

It would mean some of these senators would finally feel a need to impress their fellow Democrats, and show some fealty to the party's agenda. In other words, it would represent a fairly significant departure from the status quo.

[Captain Hilts]

1. I agree. Good idea. nt

[Jennicut]

2. This idea has long needed to be implemented. And could the Dems please kick Baucus off the Finance

Committee Chair? Please?

[karynnj]

9. I don't have any hope that would happen

Look at who is currently in Finance - Baucus, Rockefeller, Conrad, Bingaman, Kerry, Lincoln, Wyden, Schumer, Stabenow, Cantwell, Nelson(fl), Menendez, Carper. My guess is this would likely come down to Schumer vs Baucus, if Schumer does not become Majority leader, but this analysis works if you substitute any of the more progressive members. Of the other Senators, of any persuation, Conrad is too close politically to challenge Baucus, Kerry would likely prefer to keep SFRC, where I doubt he would be challenged, Rockefeller would likely prefer to fight to retain Commerce. I know too little about Bingaman or Cantwell to say anything.) I don't see any of the others being sufficient power players at this time. This is the committee that will vote in late 2010. Baucus is likely to have himself, Conrad, Lincoln, Nelson and Carper. He also is supposed to be a very good friend of Rockefeller, who could be the needed 6th vote. I would guess Baucus is safe.

[Jennicut]

11. You are correct I am sad to say. Looking at the members, and the fact that

Kerry and Rockefeller are where they want to be, there is not much hope. But if some other chairs change that would be a good thing.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Will Lieberman, Baucus, Nelson lose their leadership positions? Yeah!!!!

[Cirque du So-What]

4. That's my Senator

I'm becoming increasingly proud of him over time.

This is a terrific idea, but I have my doubts whether it'll fly in the hidebound Senate. Going by seniority is a fine thing, but the Senate is not a factory floor. Senators are not all equally qualified to chair committees, and periodic shake-ups will help get the right person overseeing each committee.

[depakid]

5. I sure hope so because it's long overdue.

[patrice]

6. Would this vote be repeated regularly?

[Bluenorthwest]

7. Sounds very good to me

[karynnj]

8. This is an interesting idea, but it could end up moving the leadership to the right

If you spilt the list of Democratic Senators into 3 or 4 groups based on seniority, the oldest group would be the most liberal overall. Many of the more recent Senator, from traditionally red or purple states are far less liberal or progressive. But, you need to look at the Senators currently on the committee.

Commerce is the committee where this might happen - look at this list - look at the members, ignoring Inoye, who really is the most senior and who gave up the chair, only Lautenberg in the second half is liberal or progressive. Then look and see the bottom of the first half - Pryor, Klouchar, and Warner are also more conservative that the more senior members. (I can't really place where Cantwell is.) Not having any ideas of the personal relationships, this is a committee where they could move to the right if anyone challenges.

The Judiciary committee is headed by arguably the most liberal member - Leahy. Could he be challenged? Looking at the current list, they look sufficeintly liberal that he wouldn't, but an ambitious Senator more to the center could initiate a "coup".

Another possibility of a rightward "coup", is Armed Services, where Levin has questioned things like torture. Look at the members, their median is to right of the entire caucus and Levin is to left. *Again, I have no insight to personal relationships.)

Look at who is currently in Finance - Baucus, Rockefeller, Conrad, Bingaman, Kerry, Lincoln, Wyden, Schumer, Stabenow, Cantwell, Nelson(fl), Menendez, Carper. My guess is this would likely come down to Schumer vs Baucus, if Schumer does not become Majority leader, but this analysis works if you take any of the more progressive members. (logic Conrad is too close politically to challenge Baucus, Kerry would likely prefer to keep SFRC, where I doubt he would be challenged, Rockefeller would likely prefer to fight to retain Commerce.) I don't see any of the others being sufficient power players at this time. This is the committee that will vote in late 2010. Baucus is likely to have himself, Conrad, Lincoln, Nelson and Carper. He also is supposed to be a very good friend of Rockefeller, who could be the needed 6th vote. I would guess Baucus is safe.

Now, Budget there is far more of a chance for change - here is a list of members - http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/democrats.html

On SFRC, there is no one with Kerry's stature, and his committee's hearings have been extremely well planned, covering a broad range of issues. Their tone has shown more respect to all Senators on the committee than was shown even under Lugar - who was much better on that than Biden. Here is that committee - http://foreign.senate.gov/ (Dodd will be gone in 2011, leaving only Feingold and Boxer having any significant time on this committee.) (I suspect that had leadership been voted on for years before, Kerry would likely have been voted to head the committee in 2004.)

On HELP, I agree with the article's assessment, it is not clear that anyone would challenge Harkin - http://help.senate.gov/

Doing this, I see that it might come down to personal relationships. If a person is doing their homework and running the committee well, I suspect that there will be a feeling, given the tradition, that removing him/her will be a humiliation. Now it is done behind the scenes when the Senator or the leadership think that the job is too much for them - and that is subjective. No one in the HELP committee would have moved against Kennedy in Nov 2008.

[flpoljunkie]

10. Read this and think it's a idea whose time is long overdue. We can't have Johnson head of banking!

[formercia]

12. Where's Robespierre when you need him?

[NC_Nurse]

13. Good. Something needs to shake up the system.

[rhett o rick]

14. Looks good to me. nm