In the wake of the controversial selection of Kirsten Gillibrand to fill Hillary Clinton’s U.S. Senate seat and the decision by embattled Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to name Roland Burris to President Obama’s former U.S. Senate seat, Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold announced plans to introduce an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would require Senate vacancies be filled by special elections instead of allowing governors to make those appointments.
Said Sen. Feingold:
“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” Feingold said. “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.”
It was another of Wisconsin’s U.S. Senators – Robert M. La Follette – who led the movement to the enact the Seventeenth Amendment, which did away with the Constitutional requirement that U.S. Senators were selected by state legislators. The process of legislative selection of U.S. Senators had been largely corrupted, with bribes and political calculations commonplace, but the Seventeenth Amendment was read to allow states to choose on their own how to fill Senate vacancies, with many states relying on some form of gubernatorial appointment to fill vacancies. Considering the entire purpose of the Seventeenth Amendment was to allow for the citizens to directly elect their U.S. Senators, it seems only logical that the people should get to choose a replacement for a duly elected senator through a special election.
Considering the fact that all House vacancies must be filled by special elections, it only makes sense to bring the process for filling Senate vacancies in line, not only for the sake of consistency, but more importantly so that the people will always have a voice in choosing who will serve them in the United States Senate.
Zach,
I’m hesitant to agree with Feingold on this one. Why? The Senate was deliberately intended to be somewhat insulated from the general will, which is quick to demand one thing and just as quick to demand something else. This is why the Senate is elected to staggered six year terms such that no more than a third of the Senate can change in a given election cycle, while the entire House of Representatives (which was intended to be more responsive to the fickle vox populi) is up for grabs every two years.
That is also why the founders didn’t want Senators popularly elected, which probably was a bit of a mistake. But requiring a special election in the case of a vacancy because of two controversial nomination processes (and the one in New York was only controversial because Caroline Kennedy was involved) threatens to turn the Senate into a second House of Representatives. Arguing that “This is already how they settle vacancies in the HoR” is a flawed argument, because the framers intended the House to operate very, very differently. Not to mention the obvious cost to taxpayers, which was precisely why a special election did not take place in Illinois, despite the calls for one in many quarters. House special elections are relatively cheap in comparison, because (except in the cases of states with only one congressional district) they aren’t statewide.
Under the 17A, the individual states get to determine how best to resolve Senate vacancies. If the Burris fiasco leads states to chance their minds about the wisdom of gubernatorial appointment, they are free to pass laws requiring special elections – trading the insulation from the general will for confidence in the system (presuming a special election can’t be bought quite as easily as a governor can be bribed). But there’s no reason to amend the Constitution of the United States because of Blago. For once I will adopt the more conservative position: Let the states handle it how they will.
Sam, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. While I understand the logic behind why the framers chose to have Senators chosen by state legislatures, I don’t necessarily agree that the current way Senate vacancies are filled shouldn’t be changed simply because the framers intended for the House and the Senate to operate differently.