Back in January of this year, 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. Yesterday the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution approved Sen. Feingold’s proposed amendment to the United States Constitution to end gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats, and after the subcommittee’s vote, Sen. Feingold released the following statement:
“I applaud my colleagues on the Subcommittee for passing the Senate Vacancies Amendment, which will end an anti-democratic process that denies voters the opportunity to determine who represents them in the U.S. Senate. The nation witnessed four gubernatorial appointments to Senate seats earlier this year, some mired in controversy, and we will soon see another one in Texas. This will leave more than 20 percent of Americans represented by a senator whom they did not elect. It is time to finish the job started by the great progressive Bob La Follette of Wisconsin to require the direct election of senators. No one can represent the American people in the House of Representatives without the approval of the voters. The same should be true for the Senate. I hope the full Senate Judiciary Committee will soon get the chance to consider this important constitutional amendment to entrust the people, not state governors, with the power to select U.S. senators.”
Sen. Feingold’s proposed constitutional amendment, which has bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, will now head to the full Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration.
I am saddened to read this. It is one more step away from state sovereignty; it is one more step to weaken a state’s influence in our Federal government. They are becoming vassals to the almighty Federal government.
Just as many people see the need for a third political party, I see the need for states to exert their specific agendas in Congress.
Who represents the governmental interests of Wisconsin? And how tenuous is that link if Feingold, Kohl, and all of the House members no longer have any accountability towards the state they represent?
It appears to me that we should consider ending the sham and change our country’s name to the Federal States of America.
We, the people, no longer have our state as a bulwark against the imposition of Federal Will in any state, town, city, or industry. The Federal government has eliminated all governoring competitors by law or by largesse.
I know this has been going on a long time but I am dismayed that there would be another nail in the state’s coffin and that it was proposed by Sen. Feingold.
There are some things that only state governments can do. One of those is to protect me from the Federal government.
PB, I thought you’d be supportive of this measure, as it gives the people the power to pick their Senators if a Senate seat in their state becomes vacant.
Yeah, what the heck? Have you read the bill & seen something different than what Zach posted?
I’ve thought governor appointments for Senate vacancies has been a problem for awhile, and only gotten worse. Especially given the tremendous advantage of incumbency (which is just sad). If anything, this gives power to the people.
And I should add – I disagree with Feingold on the vast majority of issues. But it’s because of things like us that I support him anyway. There are issues he seems to be the only one willing to bring forward & I’m willing to live with my disagreement on the rest because of it.
I agree with PB. “It gives the people the power to pick their Senators” says Zach. But why can’t each State choose how to pick its Senators? Is Congress going to fund these special elections, or will each State be forced to shell out the cash? Seems like it should be a State decision, and as long as the method by which Senators are selected is voted on and approved by the people within each State, then the US Congress should stay out of it.
Cari, you might be comfortable leaving the decision on who to appoint up to governors like Rod Blagojevich, but I think there’s gotta be a better way.
I think the good people of Illinois should be able to decide for themselves how to fill vacant seats. What’s wrong with that? Sure, you get some real boneheads and awful crooks in the governor’s mansion (seems to happen more in IL than other states, but that’s beside the point), but if the people of a state want to use their tax dollars to have another election, then fine. If instead, the people want to ensure continuity of representation in the US Senate as quickly as possible, then a legislature- or governor-appointed person should be okay too.
Why can’t each state just decide to let the governor appoint all Senate seats? Hell, let the governor just fill all positions, always & the Federal government has no business saying otherwise.
What I find most amusing – I’m probably one of the biggest states’ rights, federalist I know. Seriously, just yesterday I was grumbling that the 10th was dead & had been for some time. This ain’t a states’ rights issue.
A plain text reading of the 17th makes it very clear the state executive appointment is temporary and requires issue of a writs of election. What it didn’t do is specify a time period for election to take place leaving open the option to ignore it until regular election time.
Personally I’d say the forget appointment period. Just strike the whole second paragraph of the 17th. Senators are elected by the people of their state – that’s all. If a state wants to fill a vacancy when a Senator dies/gets thrown in jail, elect a new one.
I have opposed the 17th Amendment for quite awhile. The Constitution was based upon the rights of states to conduct their own affairs and it set up a structure for the States to work together for their common good.The 17th Amendment was a really wicked idea to reduce state’s influence by disingenuously giving power to the people to vote for Senators directly rather than having their selection determined by the States’ constitutions. The 17th Amendment accomplished the following: 1.It severed the State’s ability to place a person in Congress who would directly support the best interests of the state’s government 2. It gave power to the political parties to choose their candidates for the Senate and to back them with money. 3. It allowed the Senators to think more of their party’s interests than their own state government 4. State legislatures and executive branches lost the ability to recall a sitting senator.
The 17th Amendment threw the governors a bone by allowing them to fill vacancies. Not the legislatures who once chose senators who represented them. The governors.
Sen. Feingold’s proposa steals the bone that was given to them.
Repeal the 17th amendment, please. That is what changed the Republic to what we have today.
I’m not sure I agree with all that…. All elected officials are beholden to the party that got them elected–including governors and members of the legislature. I’d be surprised if political parties actually lost or gained any real power either way.
Au contraire. Name one politician in the federal government today (other than Ron Paul) who supports the Ninth (people’s rights) and Tenth Amendments (state and people power.) None,nada. Zip and zero.
Name a hundred congressmen pre-1900 who supported the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Easy to do. Almost all of them to some degree. The entire Civil War resulted from states who thought they could resign from the Union. States who could read the Constitution and see that slavery was legal and that the US government wanted to change the very Constitution. They seceded and Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, said “uh,no, you can’t do that”.
I am not advocating that we return to the 1860s but today we need a serious re-examination of state sovereignty and to give them a voice in Congress. I advocate three Senators from each state, two elected by the people and one chosen by each state in their own fashion. That gives each state a voice; it gives states with a common purpose to band together (i.e., Great Lakes Water Compact) the political power to achieve their aims.
The rise of political party power and the subrogation of states to the Federal government began in 1861 and progressed in 1911 when the 17th Amendment was passed by political parties over the common sense of state legislatures. It was furthered by FDR and LBJ, Reagan, and Bush. One party creates the tool and the other party extends the reach. We need protection from the Federal government and both political parties now.
Well, that’s my opinion anyway. As I said, I am PartiallyBlue.
Your last two posts have been very interesting. I definitely agree that the two parties have too much control and that the federal government has too much control. I just can’t imagine adding 50 more Senators will make an ounce of difference or improve anything. If anything, it will move more power to Washington.
I also don’t believe the 17th can be blamed for much if anything especially the obliteration of the 10th. It was two months earlier, when the 16th amendment was ratified that was the turning point. It was the money – once the federal government got a virtually limitless power to confiscate personal property through income taxes, it was only a matter of time.