CT Legislature Introduces Bill Taking Away Governor's Power to appoint US Senate Vacancies

here's the link to the bill as currently drafted (0.00 / 0)

I listened to the organizational meeting of the judiciary committee, and it sounds to me like this bill is in what is called 'concept' form, used to "raise the bill" (put it in play, essentially) and this is not the form the CGA will actually vote on.

Long timers will yawn at this insight; you can move along while us new folks learn the ropes!

http://www.cga.ct.go...

---

by: greenpeas @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 11:05:42 AM CST

Ah, so this bill has a long way to go to make into reality... (0.00 / 0)

And could probably be killed in many ways along the way...

Shall I delete?

---

by: CtLiberal @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 11:17:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

NO WAY!! (4.00 / 2)

This is my understanding of the situation, and I think it's the SAME situation for pretty near all the new bills introduced at the start of the session.

I consider your post a heads up - that it's  in play, in action, and someone is putting their money where their mouth is.

I didn't post the current bill in any way to diminish what you offered.  It's just  to say, you know, "Okay, this is what we have so far, and this is how to find it in this or any situation when we get news of a bill and want to actually see it firsthand.

No, CTliberal, you leave that sucker right where it is! ; )

---

by: greenpeas @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 11:31:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Absolutely (4.00 / 2)

In addition to that, follow-ups here and at other now influential Connecticut blogs should be a priority because you just never know....

---

by: Scarce @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 12:13:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks Tim O'Brien (4.00 / 3)

If anyone wants to send him feedback, suggestions, or thank the man, here is his public e-mail:

Tim.Obrien@cga.ct.gov

|Spazeboy.net|Spazeboy's Guide to Political Videoblogging|

---

by: spazeboy @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 12:18:52 PM CST

Good idea, spaze! (0.00 / 0)

yup, I'll write -- my newfound theory that when our reps know we are attentive and engaged, they'll do their best ( and know where to find us when they need to demonstrate support for their measures).

---

by: greenpeas @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 12:21:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

O'Brien Rocks (4.00 / 1)

He's one of the New Britain State Reps, and was an early Lamont supporter and hugely encouraging to me as a blogger.

Here's O'Brien at the candidates forum at CCSU in July 2006:


|Spazeboy.net|Spazeboy's Guide to Political Videoblogging|

---

by: spazeboy @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 12:26:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

what a difference it makes to see him when I write to him (0.00 / 0)

Thanks, spazeboy. What was the ctblogger quote?  A video is worth a million words?  Now I really have much more of a sense of WHO Tim O'Brien is.

---

by: greenpeas @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 12:30:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

State Rep. Tim O'Brien's website (4.00 / 1)

here.

Tim is one of the truly great guys in the state legislature! Go New Britain!

---

by: TrueBlueCT @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 18:50:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Government Administration and Elections Committee (4.00 / 1)

Members include one Mike Lawlor and Diana Urban, among others.  Could be a good idea to contact them directly also.

http://www.cga.ct.go...

---

by: Scarce @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 12:35:19 PM CST

When the student is ready, the teacher appears (4.00 / 1)

Using CTliberal's posting about this new bill on changing how a vacant US senate seat is filled in CT, check out this graphic that shows the steps to becoming a law, and you will see that this bill is now at the step of going to the appropriate committee, which is the GAE that scarce cites above.

By the way, don't forget to be unimpressed, and remember -- as I always say -- the transit time between the time I learn it myself and posting it here is very, very short ; )

On we go together to becoming informed PARTICIPANTS in the democratic process.

http://www.cga.ct.go...

---

by: greenpeas @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 12:43:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Dig those groovy icons (0.00 / 0)

Takes me back to Windows 3.1.

---

by: Scarce @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 12:48:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Senator Slossberg is not a Nedhead (0.00 / 0)

Chair of the GAE. Personal loyalty to Joe Lieberman, though not to the extent of (gag) Representative Amann.

"I am not a Blogger...But I play one on the internet."

---

by: tessa @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 14:08:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ed Meyer is on the Senate GAE, as (4.00 / 1)

well as Gayle. This bill should be a no-brainer for our Dem majorities to pass.

Imagine if Dodd or Lieberman retired, (or dropped dead), tomorrow. The balance of the Senate would then be toppled via Rell appointing a Republican to the vacant seat. Hardly in keeping with the will of the people!

---

by: TrueBlueCT @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 18:56:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

still could be toppled (0.00 / 0)

depending on the "will of the people" at that particular moment in time...

It's just that the "will of the governor" would not be the deciding factor and hopefully it would be a reasonable reflection fo what people wanted.

By the way, who do you suppose votes in special elections? I mean, is it the same crowd who votes in August primaries???

---

by: greenpeas @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 19:23:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Just curious? (4.00 / 1)

This bill would bring Connecticut in line with most of the other states. Yes?


Drinking Liberally in New Milford
ePluribus Media

---

by: Connecticut Man1 @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 12:44:29 PM CST

Not quite (0.00 / 0)

Only 8 states restrict the power of the governor to appoint a Senate replacement.

Special elections for vacated House seates, though, are constitutionally required.

Good PDF on this here.

---

by: tparty @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 12:50:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

source? including Alaska and Massachusetts (0.00 / 0)

I couldn't google it, tparty. Is there a chart?  The doc you site is useful; dated 2003.  Alaska decided in 2003 and Mass in 2005, I believe. 

---

by: greenpeas @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 13:14:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

True (4.00 / 1)

My source was the 2003 pdf and this column. The PDF lists eight states which limit their governors' powers regarding senate appointments: at that time, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma required special elections; Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Utah and Wyoming required replacements from the same party.

Alaska also passed a ballot initiative in 2004 which amended the existing law in order to prevent the governor from appointing an interim senator before any such special election.

The Massachusetts legislature also passed a similar law in summer 2004, with the looming possibility that Romney could have appointed a Republican to Kerry's seat if he had won.

So I think we're up to 9 states. CT would be the 10th.

---

by: tparty @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 13:47:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Current law re: senate vacancy (4.00 / 1)

" Sec. 9-211. United States senator; vacancy. In case of a vacancy in the office of senator in Congress, the Governor is empowered to fill such vacancy by appointment as herein provided. If such vacancy occurs sixty or more days prior to a state election, the appointee shall serve until the third day of January following such election, and at such election there shall be elected a senator in Congress to serve for the remaining portion, if any, of the term vacated. If such vacancy occurs within less than sixty days of a state election and the term vacated does not expire on the third day of January following such election, the appointee shall serve until the third day of January following the next such election but one, and at such next election but one there shall be elected a senator in Congress to serve for the remaining portion, if any, of the term vacated. If such vacancy occurs within less than sixty days of a state election and the term vacated expires on the third day of January following, the appointee shall serve until such third day of January."

What ever one feels about filling a vacancy, a vacancy appointment is not for the remainder of the vacated senator's term unless the remainder of the term is less than 4 months.

A special election can take up to 150 days to be held.  Time must be allowed for notices to town committees to endorse, primaries, petition candidates, campaigning by the eventual candidates and printing of the paper ballots (and programming memory cards for the scanners). 

---

by: snap @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 19:14:58 PM CST

So If I'm Understanding It Right... (4.00 / 1)

...the difference between the proposed new law and the existing law is that, under the existing law a vacancy would be filled by the Governor's appointee for a maximum of 2 years (i.e., the longest possible time 'til the next state election), while under the proposed change a vacancy would remain vacant for a maximum of 150 days (i.e., the time 'til a special election could be held). Have I got that right?

If those are the choices, I'll take the latter in a heartbeat: The harm to state constituents of having the seat vacant for up to 5 months (less time than some senators spend running for president!) is minimal, and having the seat vacant can't possibly cause control of the senate to change hands.

This only really matters when control of the senate is at stake. I know, of course, that senators represent only their own states, but in reality the stakeholders are much more broadly distributed than that: It strikes me as frankly ludicrous that any one governor -- even my own state's -- should ever control the destiny of the entire country.

---

by: dauphinb @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 19:58:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I would guess replacers tend to get re-elected (0.00 / 0)

Kind of like Jodi Rell and the governor situation.

So, practically speaking, the governor's replacement could effectively be for what amounts to an 8 year term, unless the person is really, really awful.

The same could occur with a special election, but might bear more of a resemblance of the people's choice.

---

by: greenpeas @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 20:39:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If you had... (0.00 / 0)

..a special election next month for US Senate, what do you think the voter turn out would be?

Would a 20% turnout electing a new Senator bear more of a resemblance of the people's choice than the people who voted in Nov. '06 and elected a Governor who, as part of the governor's responsibility, is to temporarily fill a Senate vacancy? 

Such a special election would be strictly based upon a get out the vote drive, not necessarily the will of the people.

Funny things can happen in special elections.  Democratic towns can wind up voting Republican or vice versa. "Independent" candidates,with a small but solid base of support, could swamp Democrats or Republicans. 

---

by: snap @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 21:33:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not quite correct (0.00 / 0)

Under current law and (presumably) a replacement law calling for a special election, there would not be a 5 month vacancy unless whomever was Governor delayed in appointing a successor. 

What really needs to be considered is a governor's apointment of (actually) a minumum up to 6 months vs a maximum of 26 months (if I'm counting correctly).  Election laws give no preference to poitical parties or their candidates.  The law treats everyone as being elected in their own right.  It's kinda crazy, in practice candidates are often elected because of their party affiliation but that affiliation  carries no weight under the law once elected. 

The Constitution makes no mention of political parties when addressing leadership positions of the Senate or the House.

The making of political law based upon the results of an election is bad law.  Does society want political law to change every time there is a change in political (party) power?  Party power swings back and forth, sometimes quickly, sometimes over many years.  Laws, IMO, should be fair to all and stable.  Laws should not be changed because of the dislike of the results of an election, i.e. US Senate vs Governor vs State Legislature in 2006.  What if things flip in 2008?  Should the then new legislature change a law enacted by the present legislature. 

I'm thinking this is getting too deep to try explaining further in one post. 

---

by: snap @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 21:20:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I Hope.. (0.00 / 0)

...my opinion on this is not just a self-serving one based on this election.

Laws should not be changed because of the dislike of the results of an election...

I absolutely agree, and I like to think I'd take the same position if the political shoe were on the other foot.

What if things flip in 2008?  Should the then new legislature change a law enacted by the present legislature.

As a matter of basic political philosophy, I think gubernatorial appointment of a replacment senator makes little sense: Because the issues under the purview of the state executive are so different from those facing the U.S. Senate, voters are highly likely to have had different concerns in mind when choosing a governor than when choosing a senator, and an appointed replacement senator is therefore highly likely to not reflect the people's choice. The proposed new law would change the procedure for replacing a senator to match that used to replace a representative...

"Sec. 9-212. Representative in Congress. In case of a vacancy in the office of representative in Congress from any district, the Governor, except as otherwise provided by law, shall issue writs of election directed to the town clerks or assistant town clerks, in such district, ordering an election to be held on a day named, other than a Saturday or Sunday, to fill such vacancy, and shall cause them to be conveyed to a state marshal, who shall forthwith transmit an attested copy thereof to such clerks or assistant clerks. Such clerks or assistant clerks, on receiving such writs, shall warn elections to be held on the day appointed therein in the same manner as state elections are warned, which elections shall be organized and conducted as are state elections, and the vote shall be declared, certified, directed, deposited, returned and transmitted in the same manner as at a state election."

...which, if I'm reading it correctly, directs the governor to call a special election, but not to appoint a replacement, even a temporary interim one. This avoids the possibility that the people of the state will be represented, even temporarily, by someone who might not only not reflect their consensus views, but in fact might reflect polar opposite views.

To be sure, the importance of this is put in stark view at the moment, when (for instance) the indictment of the junior senator from an unnamed New England state might put the Senate, and therefore effectively the whole government, back in the hands of the very warmongering b@st@rds we've worked so hard to defeat. But the underlying logic of this change would still be compelling, even if the parties in question were reversed.

---

by: dauphinb @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 22:32:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

coverage and vote (4.00 / 1)

Here's the AP article on the issue and an earlier Courant column.  The J-I did an article, but their site is down.

On Friday, the GAE committee voted to draft the bill as a committee bill, an encouraging sign.  (They did not approve the bill, but it will be drafted as a bill from the committee - a mildly encouraging sign.)

Since U.S. House vacancies result in a special election, I really don't understand why Senate vacancies should be treated differently.  The current law just doesn't make much sense to me.

---

by: mikect @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 19:41:55 PM CST

historical origins - legislative selection of senators (4.00 / 1)

the PDF up in tparty's post has some background.

Originally, the Constitution provided that senators were elected by state legislatures.  Direct election of senators has been in effect since 1913.  The current "appointment by governor" is an artifact of the original US Constitution, in which senators were elected by state legislatures.  The gubernatorial appointment to vacant Senate seats

was intended to ensure continuity in a state's Senate representation during the lengthy intervals between state legislative sessions.

The original strategy behind this gambit is said to have been to garner support for ratification of the US Constitution.  I guess the glow wore off pretty quickly, with efforts began as early as the 1820's to change the original constitutional language on senatorial elections.

Real problems with the legislature's election of senators started cropping up in the mid-1850s and continued into the end of the century or more. Vacant senate seats, occasionally for as long as two to four years, occurred due to conflicts leading to gridlock. Impasses occurred due to tensions over slavery and states' rights  in the lead-up to the Civil War.

Problems multiplied post-war, and in trying to resolve them, it became clear that the states varied in their rules about electing senators.  In 1866 Congress passed a law intended to create consistency in state senatorial election practices. It helped, but not enough. Deadlocks resulting in long vacancies, and intimidation and bribery were commonplace. The Senate heard nine bribery cases between 1866 and 1906, and forty-five deadlocks occurred in twenty states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating senators. In 1899, problems in electing a senator in Delaware were so acute that the state legislature did not send a senator to Washington for four years.

Concurrently, support for direct elections grew over the latter half of the 19th Century, including a populist proposal that was largely ignored.  Journalists played a big part in building support for direct election:

[William Randolph] Hearst hired a veteran reporter, David Graham Phillips, who wrote scathing pieces on senators, portraying them as pawns of industrialists and financiers.

There's more, and it's an interesting read, especially for someone like me who studied far too many history classes with wrestling coaches, and for whom history in high school was about wars, politics, and stuff I didn't like or care about.

The above info comes from a US Senate article on the topic: http://www.senate.go...

---

by: greenpeas @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 20:36:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]