No good alternative to appointments
- The poster child for gubernatorial appointments is former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who allegedly tried to sell Barack Obama’s old Senate seat. Roland Burris was eventually appointed to the seat. AP Photo
Gubernatorial appointments to fill Senate vacancies are justly under fire. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) has introduced a constitutional amendment to ban the process altogether. The impetus for the change is understandable, but getting rid of gubernatorial appointments has its own set of problems.
The poster child for gubernatorial appointments is former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who allegedly tried to sell Barack Obama’s old Senate seat. Then came the delay in naming a replacement, the surprise appointment of Roland Burris, and now questions about Burris’ contact with agents of Blagojevich.
But it is not just Illinois. We had New York Gov. David Paterson agonizing over appointing Caroline Kennedy to fill Hillary Clinton’s seat. In Delaware, some have criticized the appointment of Vice President Joe Biden’s former staffer Ted Kaufman as merely a placeholder, perhaps keeping the seat warm for Biden’s son to run in 2010. And consider the strange case of Sen. Judd Gregg, who negotiated a deal with Democratic Gov. John Lynch to appoint a Republican to replace him in the Senate, only to decline the offer to be commerce secretary and to return to the Senate before Newman ever took office.
After such a series of events, who wouldn’t be skeptical about gubernatorial appointments? In response to this tumult, Feingold has introduced a constitutional amendment to abolish the appointment process. Under the 17th Amendment of the Constitution, states are allowed the option of granting their governors the power to make temporary appointments to fill Senate vacancies. The governors of 45 states have such power. The exceptions are Wisconsin, Oregon, Alaska, Massachusetts and, in certain instances, Oklahoma, where when a Senate vacancy occurs, the seat remains vacant for a few months until a special election is held. Feingold’s amendment would implement this system in all states.
Unfortunately, getting rid of the appointment process would create new problems.
The death or resignation of a senator would lead to a state effectively losing representation for a prolonged period, likely five or six months, before the special election is held. In 1995-96, the Oregon seat long held by Republican Bob Packwood remained vacant for nearly five months after his resignation. This possibility is dangerous in the extreme case of a terrorist attack on Congress. The Continuity of Government Commission (which I am associated with) worried that the House would be effectively crippled for months after a mass attack because members are chosen only by election. The Senate could regenerate itself quickly, as governors would make appointments to fill vacancies within days of the attack.