Senator Feingold Wants Amendment to Stop Governors Appointments
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
January 26, 2009 3:26pm CST
Senator Russ Feingold has stated he wants a Constitutional Amendment which will stop governors from appointing the replacements for U.S. Senate vacancies. Here is his release:
"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://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0109/Feingold_wants_Constitutional_amendment_to_ban_gov_appointments.html
I know from past discussions here that there are some of you who have called for this change for some time. What do you think - should there be a Constitutional Amendment to ban this practice, especially given the recent controversies? I have mixed feelings since I think if a Senator is being replaced the replacement should be from the same party as the one leaving and if there were special elections that may not always be the case. However, I do believe the people have the right to choose who represents their state in the U.S. Senate. Should it be that only members of the party of the outgoing Senator is eligible to run in a special election? This is not a partisan or biased opinion since I'd feel the same way if it were Republicans who were vacating their seats.
Annie
1 person likes this
11 responses
@peavey (16936)
• United States
28 Jan 09
While I realize that it's expensive to hold an election (they shouldn't have to be that expensive) a Senator is a servant of the people, so I believe the people should have the right to elect him, regardless of the circumstances. I don't think it's fair to anyone to have the governor appoint a senator for any reason. I don't think this is too much government interference to require the states to allow the people to vote for someone who is supposed to represent them in Congress.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
28 Jan 09
The Constitution already states that House seats have to be filled by a special election and at the time that was written the Senate wasn't chosen by voters so it would seem to me making the same rule for the Senate would simply be updating the rules.
Annie
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
26 Jan 09
I agree with you Annie. Especially that the replacement should be from the same party as the outgoing one.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
27 Jan 09
I don't think any party should ever be forced on the people. When people vote for senators many vote for the person and not the party. Take Hillary Clinton's replacement for example. She came from a very republican district where she was the first democrat elected in a very long time. People there voted her in because of her stance on issues important to them despite the fact that she was a democrat.
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
26 Jan 09
I would disagree....it should go to the best qualified person reguardless of party. If not then it is discrimation.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
27 Jan 09
It seems like we're split down the middle on this one. I also still think it should be the party of the departing Senator. The balance of power shouldn't be determined by unforeseen circumstances such as a Senator leaving in the middle of his or her term. Since it's usually only a two year or shorter term a regular election will be held then and both parties will be eligible.
Annie
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
27 Jan 09
I think senators should always be voted on by their constituents. I know that controversy of the nature we've had recently is very rare, but that is not my reason for wanting this. I am completely against the idea of limiting their selection to a member of the same party since many people vote on the person, not the party. I should ever be denied my right to vote for the person I feel is best for the job regardless of party.
Aside from my desire to represent the will of the voters, I am also not fond of the way a person can circumvent the electoral process by appealing to ONE governor as Caroline Kennedy tried to do. I think she saw the appointment as an easy way to sneak into the senate without the rigorous campaigns that most senate candidates must wage.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
27 Jan 09
In the case of Caroline Kennedy, I think things worked out for the best in the end and how she saw it is now a moot point. I don't know if we'll ever know if she would have been selected had she not withdrawn but I tend to believe she wouldn't have.
Annie
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
27 Jan 09
I really have mixed feelings about it. I mean this whole selling of seats is stupid but, I also feel that a state should not have to pay for a special election to seat a senator. Shoot most of our states are broke and can't afford to pay for a special election lol
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
27 Jan 09
I do not agree with a constitutional amendment. Let each state decide how they are going to handle these situations. But then I strongly believe in state's rights.
Also I do not agree with the whole party nonsense. It should be the best person for the job reguardless of party. Man that just really proves that all they care about is party lines and protecting the power they are fighting each other to get and keep.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
27 Jan 09
In the case of a last minute special election who's to say you will get the most qualified person or the person the voters would prefer? There would be no primaries so it would be each party putting up the candidate of their choice. It wouldn't be much different from the governor making the appointment except for there would be two "finalists" and the voters would choose from them. In most cases it would be a matter of name recognition, I suspect, and I also think the turnout would be quite low.
Annie
@laglen (19759)
• United States
26 Jan 09
I would almost agree. But the cost of elections, the fact that it is only one year and not a full term, and they should be from the same party. In a perfect world I would say hold another election. The only reason this comes up is because of Blegoiavich (sp). And he is a sociopath so shouldn't count!
1 person likes this
@us2owls (1681)
• United States
27 Jan 09
It should be that any vacant Senate seat is filled by election and it should be that both Democrat, Republicans or Independants etc can run. This would prevent any more shenanigans like Illinois is going through right now where the Governor plainly tried to profit personally from choosing someone to replace Obamas empty seat. Anyone chosen by a Governor is not necessarily the choice of the people of that state.
@katsmeow1213 (28716)
• United States
26 Jan 09
I think having a special election would be a great idea, and I'd hold it open for both parties.
I personally think a bit of balance is called for. If the president is democrat, the majority of the senate should be republican. Same holds true if the president is republican. This way we can ensure that nothing overly radical is going to happen, they can even each other out.
But that's just my opinion and how my perfect world would be. I know it's really just a fairy tale, lol.
1 person likes this
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
26 Jan 09
I do not agree with a Constitutional Amendment to decide this issue. The Federal Government is sticking its nose into too much of our lives. I believe each state should decide for itself how they want to choose a replacement. I do believe that a special election would be the most fair, but it should be left up to the state to decide, not the Federal Government.
1 person likes this
