Russ Feingold: The rest of the nation should follow Oregon's lead
Kari Chisholm
As I mentioned last week, Oregon fills vacant Senate seats the right way - with a special election. (Not that it looks like we're going to have one any time soon.)
What I didn't realize was just how unique that is. According to Jeff Mapes at the O, we're just one of four states that does it that way. The others are Wisconsin, Massachusetts and Alaska; and Alaska just changed its rules last year (after Gov. Frank Murkowski appointed his daughter, Lisa, to the seat he vacated when he became Governor; a move that also led to his primary election defeat at the hands of Sarah Palin.)
Well, watching all the appointment insanity this year has led Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) to propose a constitutional amendment - to force all 50 states to fill open Senate seats by special election. Mapes:
He's introduced a proposed constitutional amendment requiring senate vacancies to be filled by election. He decided to act after watching four Senate vacancies filled by appointment following the election - and it wasn't pretty. ...Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures until the 17th amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1913 calling for the direct election of senators. (Several states, including Oregon in 1908, had already gone down this road, a reaction to the corruption endemic in letting politicians choose senators). Feingold said there was little discussion during the 17th amendment debate about how to fill vacancies, and he said lawmakers might have acted differently if they knew how often - 184 times - the appointment process would be used since.
Feingold also notes that vacancies in the U.S. House are filled by special election, with no great detriment to the process. "[T]hose who want to be a U.S. Senator should have to make their case to the people whom they want to represent, not just the occupant of the governor's mansion," he said.
Good idea.
Seems to me that the eight Senators from Wisconsin, Oregon, Massachusetts and Alaska ought to sign up as the initial co-sponsors; and then followed by the 38 Senators whose states have Governors from the opposing party. With Alaska's Mark Begich as an overlap, that would make for 45 sponsors -- a good start on the two-thirds required to pass a constitutional amendment.
And given that only one of the four vacancies this year was filled by a member of the House, folks in that body ought to be favorably disposed.
I'm glad to see Feingold thinking about this stuff.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Feb 10, '09
It's a good idea... but we've got a many, many more other good ideas that are more important to be spending our time and energy on.
Sen. Feingold need to get himself re-focused on more important issues, too. He's too important a voice to go wondering off on a tangent like this right now.
4:47 a.m.
Feb 10, '09
That is indeed a very good idea. And since it can take so long for these things to happen, it is a good idea to get started as quickly as possible.
Working on items like this doesn't mean that you can't work on other things at the same time. That is exactly what members of Congress do every single day.
This may not seem like that big of a deal to us, but ask people in those states where the appointment was made. Obviously by the reaction of voters in Alaska shows that it is a pretty big deal to people.
8:24 a.m.
Feb 10, '09
In a sane world I would agree that special elections are the way to go. In the world we are living in I no longer find this workable. Not having a senator in office for 3-4 months can be a disastor. Look at what is happening in Minnesota and ask whether the country would be better off if the Senate was fully staffed.
I believe that the best solution is a governor appointed temporary senator that is not permitted to run for election followed by an election at the next normal state wide election. That way candidates would have enough time to campaign. We could have a primary and a general and run the process properly. Rushed elections can have wierd results.
Feb 10, '09
It's where talking about democracy deviates from practicing it. Yes, folks should follow our good example, but, more important, Oregonians should be proud of their example. A recent comment in an environmental debate here had a poster stating that Oregon will never do anything to affect climate change. That is an example of the attitude that is totally inappropriate. We are the light on a hill. Duh, how can a lighthouse affect shipping? It don't make a good anchor or anythin'...
So, when the Palin/Stevens melodrama was playing out during the election, and folks theorized they were pulling a fast one to get a Senate appointment, you all could have been a little more understanding. If memory serves the attitude was that it was Alaska, dummy, you're a conspiracy freak. In fact, it was a peculiarity among states that few knew existed.
What I didn't realize was just how unique that is.
Sorry, I had to reread the post. That certainly covers it, though, you would have been aware of the fact 8 weeks earlier if you had not looked first at the name on the post to determine your answer. Don't remember off the top of my head who it was, but it was one of the standard "ignore the troll" types. Personally, I think if a post needs to be ignored, it should be deleted. Otherwise, answer the question seriously, when asked.
8:35 a.m.
Feb 10, '09
Apparently the appointed sitting Senators don't think much of the idea. An article yesterday noted Feingold's difficulty in attracting sponsors.
This doesn't seem like a federal issue--states determine their own manner of presentation of representatives to Congress. The problem isn't necessarily the rule, but the partisanship of governors that makes it seem unfair at times. While I think it was a cheeky deal to make by Gregg, the Governor of NH put aside his party and agreed to maintain a Republican for the interim seat. Particularly when the vacancy is good news rather than bad (eg removal via scandal), there is some merit to honoring the party voters chose for that term.
I think there are pros and cons either way, which muddles the question of whether mandating a blanket approach for all states is warranted.
Feb 10, '09
With the world cascading into an economic depression, like this is what we need to be focusing our attention on.
The word circulating yesterday is that Oregon schools are going to have to close a month early. So .........the burning issue is a constitutional amendment about replacing senators. Oh yeah....
9:13 a.m.
Feb 10, '09
Bill R -- You know where the guest column link is. Rather than complaining about the posts, I suggest you use it.
9:39 a.m.
Feb 10, '09
Kari, I think you misunderstood. The commenter is referring to Feingold's focus, not BlueO's.
Feb 10, '09
Posted by: Frank | Feb 10, 2009 2:41:07 AM
It's a good idea... but we've got a many, many more other good ideas that are more important to be spending our time and energy on.
Sen. Feingold need to get himself re-focused on more important issues, too. He's too important a voice to go wondering off on a tangent like this right now.
Right. 100 people craft laws for the country and we have much better things to think about than the fact that the worst political hacks alive can simply write in the next member of the Senate.
Posted by: Torridjoe | Feb 10, 2009 9:39:50 AM
Kari, I think you misunderstood. The commenter is referring to Feingold's focus, not BlueO's.
Like it gets published. This "don't be a troll, publish" idea don't fit the track record. I would love to hear Bill R's take on how poor Senate character isn't relevant to the world sliding into economic depression, though. Maybe you haven't noticed, but there's no good reason for this crisis. It's totally inflicted. And that is so American. "Yes, I know we don't think things through enough, and yes, I know we probably should have, but now that it's in the crapper, only an idiot would stop and, well, whatever you do when you stop. Never tried it." You think, as opposed to react, when you stop. Given the onus that the average mortgage holder has in this, I wonder why pandering politicians aren't doing that? The deal seems to blame the investment banks, for which they get tax-payer money in return. Tell the mortgage holders that they're innocents but don't give them jack. Good politics.
10:31 a.m.
Feb 10, '09
I can never understand why people seem to think that just because a Senator is talking about another issue that it means that is ALL they're thinking about, working on, and want. And that they want the Senate to focus on it and nothing else.
Bills like this take months and months (or longer) to make it through the Senate. You bring up the idea and because it isn't a hugely pressing issue, it takes time. But in no way does it keep them from working on the major issue of the day.
Remember - there is always a pressing issue of the day. It may be the economy, war, or whatever, but there is always something. That doesn't mean that Congress never works on the day-to-day stuff or the little things that need to be taken care of - it just means that they don't spend 100% of their time on the smaller stuff.
I worked in a Congressional office. And I can tell you that members of Congress and their offices are working on a multitude of other "smaller" issues that never get discussed on tv or in the news. If they didn't, nothing would ever get done except whatever was the major issue of the day.
I don't mind there being a temp appointment that is a person who will not be running for the seat. I just don't like seeing corrupted processes for such an important seat as the Senate. Look at how many appointments we've already had to the current Senate. I'm sure the constituents in those state would much rather have been able to elect the replacements.
Feb 10, '09
Yes, it sounds like our way is a much better method. However, choosing replacment US senators is not a federal issue. It is a States' issue.
Feb 10, '09
I tend to agree with Kurt. While I don't have any real problem with Feingold's idea in principle (allowing voters to choose who represents them instead of having them appointed by fiat is a good thing...), this is a question of States' rights.
The Federal Government has no business dictating to the States how they choose to send representatives to Washington, regardless of the potential for abuse that exists in the way some States do it now.
Once you start giving away the power to make decisions, it's usually quite difficult to get it back.
Feb 10, '09
Just so we all know the language. Amendment XVII
The legislature doesn't have to give the power to the "executive" (Governor)to appoint the temp Senator, but it seems they did and then the legislature sets up the election process anyway they want it.
So the "executive authority" (SOS) shall, as in must, file a writ of election after all that or if none of that happens, but there is no time-line specified in the case of the latter.
I can see where it needs improvement.
3:39 p.m.
Feb 10, '09
This "don't be a troll, publish" idea don't fit the track record.
Huh? We publish most of the stuff we get - as long as it's not a press release, moderately well-written, and you attach your actual name to it.
In the first 10 days of this month, for example, we've published 8 guest columns.
Feb 10, '09
@ Kari I wasn't complaining about your post as much as I was stating that Russ Feingold's introducing this constitutional amendment at this time is not good timing.
Feb 10, '09
The States having the final word is an interesting point. So, in theory, the Constitution has nothing to say if, say, Alaska wanted to fill a Senate position by having a "Which Pig Wears Lipstick the Best" contest, or if Minnesota wanted a Texas Death Cage Tag-Team match, eh?
Just to pause a moment and see how starkly different democracy can be, where it has continued to evolve, pause to really consider a good article on the Israeli elections today. I know a lot of people would look at that and say "what a mess", but, after forming a government, could you have the spectacle that was the US Senate vote today? It is very difficult to see the contrast, stark as it is today, as being a differnt kind of democracy, rather than a different level of maturity.
8:04 a.m.
Feb 11, '09
I don't think anyone said "final word;" at least I didn't. There is however a default presumption of deference. The Feds would need a strongly compelling case IMO to justify the abrogation.
Feb 11, '09
Concentrating on the more substantial part of DS' comment, "Yes"!
Feb 11, '09
There is however a default presumption of deference. The Feds would need a strongly compelling case IMO to justify the abrogation.
WTF? The 17th Amendment changed the previous system, in which senators were not directly elected, but rather chosen by state legislatures. Is TJ suggesting that that amendment somehow violated the appropriate federal "deference" to the states?
Feb 11, '09
Vincent said: The Federal Government has no business dictating to the States how they choose to send representatives to Washington, regardless of the potential for abuse that exists in the way some States do it now.
Vincent, do you have any idea what a constitutional amendment is? An amendment is not the federal government dictating to the states. First 2/3rds of both houses have to pass it. Then 3/4ths of all of the states have to pass it in a public election.
I'm not sure how anyone could define a constitutional amendment as the federal government dictating to the states.
Feb 12, '09
Which is the only reason the ERA wasn't ratified into law. It was voted in via Washington machinations and perceived to be rammed down the country's throat, by its detractors. The states killed it.
I must have had brain freeze to not have thought of the point about Senators election in the first place and the changes that came about consequent with TR's empire, in their election. That was about as big a change as going to proportional representation in the House, so you can't say there's no precedent unless you want to replay the 20th century.
Feb 12, '09