Elect Hillary's Replacement

While the sordid saga of Rod Blagojevich's Senate Seat Sale unfolds, a variety of Illinois politicos are trying to stop Blagojevich from appointing Obama's successor. The Illinois legislature meets on Monday to discuss what to do. Illinois Senator Richard Durbin has called upon the legislature to schedule a special election. Durbin is right: the people of Illinois should be allowed to vote for their new Senator.

But Durban's proposal isn't just right for the Windy City; it's also the right approach for the Big Apple. Hillary Clinton's successor in the Senate should be picked by the voters, not the Governor.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not accusing Governor Paterson of malfeasance in selecting Hillary Clinton's successor (in New York, unethical governors who get busted on federal wiretaps are so nine months ago). This is about democracy: the people of New York should have the right to elect a new senator in a special election, just as they would if the vacancy developed in the House of Representatives.

The Seventeenth Amendment mandates special elections for midterm Senate vacancies, unless the state legislature explicitly provides for interim gubernatorial appointments. Several states have immediate special elections without temporary gubernatorial appointments. These states include Oregon, Wisconsin, and Alaska. Moreover, the Constitution mandates special elections be held for midterm vacancies in the House of Representatives without any gubernatorial appointment. It's nonsensical that residents of New York's 18th District would have a special election if Clinton had been their Representative, but that the people of New York cannot vote now on replacing her because she was their Senator.

Right now, Governor Paterson is deciding whom to appoint to Clinton's seat. Rumor is that Caroline Kennedy and Andrew Cuomo lead the pack, to say nothing of "The Nanny" actress Fran Drescher. An interim appointment to the Senate is a powerful political plum because the new Senator won't stand for election for two years, providing a strong incumbency advantage.

Authorizing a special election would be easy. The New York legislature can amend Public Officer Law §42(4)(a) to allow for a special senatorial election, just like the special election for Representative vacancies in §42(4). The legislature could set ninety days for campaigning and then hold a statewide ballot for the new junior senator. Governor Paterson is unlikely to veto a law enfranchising New York voters. True, there would be the added cost of a special election, but that's a small price to pay for a Senate seat (which, as Governor Blagojevich so eloquently reminded us, is no cheap thing).

It's up to the New York State legislature. It can keep the law as is and permit the Governor to appoint someone who will have a strong incumbency advantage in two years, or it can amend the law and let the people of New York vote now for their United States Senator. The right course is clear: New York voters shouldn't have to bust their governor to vote for Hillary's successor.

Comments

[1murillo]

Calling for special elections can be knee jerk reactions (in the case of Senate seats). The Senators will need to run again in 2010 as it's currently set up.

Kennedy Schlossberg has (her degrees), has been an attorney, an author, a fundraiser, she's worked in education and in the arts. She's had the good fortune of meeting many leaders. She's not intimidated by fame or the press, and she carries herself extremely well. She's very well qualified.

To think that she would be selected for this seat solely because of her father's name is short-sighted and petty.

(If HRC knew there would be a special election if she happened to get asked to serve then she possibly would have said 'no'; in the same way, BHO might not have run if he knew his seat would have been filled by special election. In both cases - besides the cost - the time to keep the seats empty for the Republicans could be critical. It's different in the House because of the number of seats (435H v 100S))

[Aaron Zelinsky - Huffpost Blogger]

It's true that the three new junior Senators: Delaware, Illinois, and New York, will have to run in 2010. Nevertheless, they will do so with a significant incumbency advantage.

As for the selection of Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, regardless of her qualifications, she won't be elected by the people, which is inherently undemocratic.

I'm not sure you're right about BHO or HRC not running- I can't imagine BHO wouldn't have run for President because of the possibility of a special election. HRC might be a different matter for Secretary of State, but the critical numbers in the Senate are 51 and 60, two numbers that are unlikely to occur in this case.

[standard]

What about the fact that the Senate itself is inherently undemocratic?

Alaskans have one Senator per 335,000 residents. Californians, by contrast, have one Senator per 18 million residents. Thus, as between Alaska and California, the Senate is undemocratic in the ratio of almost 54:1. ( And that doesn't begin to address the fact that not all residents of any state are of voting age and otherwise entitled to vote.) For me, that makes the issue here--a special election versus a temporary appointment made by a democratically elected official--a matter that pales by comparison.

Yes: two perceived wrongs don't make a right, and any reform is better than none (if it's not being effected merely to reassign who gains a short-term political advantage), but let's put this all in perspective and arrange our priorities accordingly. Piecemeal state-by-state reform doesn't begin to address what's most undemocratic about the Senate.

[LMPE]

Here in Oregon, the people DO elect senators if a senate seat gets vacated, as happened with Bob Packwood thirteen years ago. We elected Ron Wyden over Gordon Smith, although Smith then won Mark Hatfield's seat when the latter retired. Thank God we finally got rid of Gordon Smith!

[Aaron Zelinsky - Huffpost Blogger]

Glad to have word from someone who lives in a state with special elections. Was there any talk at the time of the Smith-Wyden election about the added cost or election fatigue?

[1murillo]

We all have special elections, we all however haven't created our rules to fit your (AZ's) happiness.

[SiberianRat]

"An interim appointment to the Senate is a powerful political plum because the new Senator won't stand for election for two years, providing a strong incumbency advantage." -- True, but he/she still has to do well in order to be an attractive incumbent. I'm very recently and ex-Illinoisan and I'm glad that Blago won't be able to choose the next anything that affects the people of that state. However, they're still going to suffer in the end due to the horrid expense of elections in this country (if that's what ends up happening). He was caught--no shady deals were made--the system worked. I think that NY would be ill-advised to change the rules now, add a bunch of extra expense to their state at a time when funds are scarce, and put the state through yet more election-related stuff when they're surely fatigued after this last marathon election season.

[Aaron Zelinsky - Huffpost Blogger]

As of now, Blagojevich can still chose the Senate replacement. That will change if (when?) he resigns, and the decision will devolve to Pat Quinn, unless legislative action is taken. As for the system working: I can't help but think what might have been the case had this been a low-profile appointment (i.e. not Obama's seat) and had the feds not been investigating him already for other things. My guess is that he would have had a decent chance of getting away with it.

It's true NY is in a current cash pinch (this is definitely the best counterargument of the bunch) and there is some election fatigue setting in, but there is election fatigue during the regular cycle by election time, and that doesn't mean we get rid of voting.

[standard]

Your proposal is to perform invasive surgery to cure no ailment whatever. I think not.

It would change the rules in the middle of the game to obstruct the leading contender for appointment. It would confine New Yorkers to one vote in the U.S. Senate, until a special election can be held and a winner verified, without need. It would impose on New Yorkers, during a severe recession, the cost of holding a special election--on top of the cost of the regular election, restrict the margin by which the Democrats control the U.S. Senate during a critical transition period, and undermine both the traditional authority of the office of Governor of New York and the political influence of the incumbent Governor.

So, if you're a Republican, or oppose Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg for some equally foolhardy reason, then it's a great idea. Otherwise, it's a change possibly worthy of consideration AFTER the current vacancy is filled--but a needless, expensive and ill-advised political maneuver were it effected now.

[Aaron Zelinsky - Huffpost Blogger]

These are interesting points. As I said below, increased cost is the most valid argument against my plan. It's definitely not cheap, but I think it's a price worth paying for democracy, particularly when there are ways to mitigate costs, such as early-voting.

As for the other arguments: I have no problem with modifying the selection process. Changing the rules is problematic only when people have a reliance interest in the rules. That is, people made decisions depending on the set of guidelines that were articulated in advance. It's hard for me to believe any of the potential nominee relied on the appointment process to their detriment. Even, if they did, then we have to balance their interest against the aggregate welfare of the people of New York.

I have trouble believing a few months with only one Senator would be that traumatic. For instance, Massachusetts got along well enough during Senator Kennedy's recent incapacity. Schumer is a pretty strong Senator.

The Senate is an all or nothing game now: 60 or bust. If they really need Clinton there's an easy solution: appoint someone else as Secretary of State and have Hillary Clinton hold on to the seat.

As for undermining the authority of Gov. Paterson, I have no trouble doing so in the name of the People of New York,.

Lastly, I'm neither a Republican nor do I hold any animus against Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg. I just have a penchant for letting people vote.

[standard]

Thank you for responding!

Instead of "So, if you're a Republican, or oppose Caroline . . . " I ought to have said, "So, if one is a Republican, or opposes Caroline . . . ". I hadn't meant to make that statement seem personal to you. Sorry!

I'll take your reliance argument under consideration. I agree that Schumer is a strong Senator; he's also been an awesome DSCC leader. I'd have had no problem with Mrs. Clinton remaining a Senator.

The choice now is between letting people vote--and having an appointed Senator until then--and creating a second election, running both New York and the Senate Democratic caucus one vote shy in the interim. I understand why you prefer the second option: reform. However, I fear that most folks now opposing an appointment are trying to cut Kennedy or Cuomo off at the pass or undercut Gov. Paterson for political reasons and aren't reformers. Nor am I: I like Mrs. Schlossberg and Gov. Paterson and so, look to the immediate effect on them. For me, changing the process can wait a few months.

[1murillo]

The '60' standard is not 'all or nothing.' It was created recently by the GOP thinking to keep the Democrats from influencing legislation. If it were however, you're arguing that someone should refuse serving the president to remain in a junior seat.

There are several ways to use Robert's Rules with 50+1.

The Schumer example you use is a lark. By your reasoning, states with 'strong' Senators should have special elections to fill a vacancy - 'because they only need 1 anyway' - but states with 'weak' Senators should have governor-appointed vacancies.

Your arguments are merely trying to respond to the dozens of reasons why your original claim is unsound.

[Doofus]

There's already a requirement for a special Senatorial election, just not til 2010,
which would save some money for the state. Also, the odds that Nydia Valasquez
from Brooklyn, or Louise Slaughter from Rochester-Buffalo, or any given current NY
Representative would actually win a statewide election are slim, arguably not as
good as Repo man Peter King who is obvoxious enough to at least have better
name recognition state wide. The main advantage to appointing a not-so-widely
known (Demo) person is to give them an opportunity to develop some visibility
over the next couple years before running for (what is in effect) re-election. Giving
that up just gives the Repos a better chance at picking up a Senate seat.

[Aaron Zelinsky - Huffpost Blogger]

One problem with special election is that they tend to favor high profile candidates, but I can't imagine Paterson is going to pick a low-profile person. Certainly candidates 1-5 in Illinois (or at least our conjectures of who they are) are very high profile.

It seems to me that Paterson is going to need to appoint a big name person for one reason: fundraising. The new junior senator is going to have to run in 2010 and in 2012. That's going to require a lot of money, so it will likely be a "big name" in any case, just not one elected by the people.

[Doofus]

So, if there's no 'extra' special election, there's no need for a
'high profile' candidate. Looks like a 'problem solved', eh?

[NYCLeon]

As a New Yorker and an activist: Please don't let it be Caroline Kennedy. She has not been in the policy world or in the legislative world at any point in her life. She really has nothing but the famous name and connections. She is not from NY and does not understand the needs of the people here. Before you compare her to HRC in that way- remember that HRC was a top lawyer in Arkansas- developed the effective education and healthcare plans there and was Bills close advisor during the 8 years in the whitehouse. Additionally, she did a lot of work to get to know NY- she went to every county in 2000 and actually won Republican strongholds upstate. She did her homework rather than just depending on the famous name. The woman who should be considered for the position is Nydia Velasquez, Brooklyn Congresswoman in the tradition of Shirley Chisholm.

Leon

[glorialovelace]

I don't want Caroline Kennedy as my Senator either, but how is she not from New York? She was born in New York City, spent the first five years of her life in Washington, and then returned to New York and has lived her ever since.

Nydia Velazquez has said she is not interested in the job. Pick somebody else.

[Aaron Zelinsky - Huffpost Blogger]

All good reasons that this should not be an appointed spot. There's little say New Yorker's have in the matter. The worst is when there is rampant and blatant nepotism. For instance, fomer Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski appointed his daughter, Lisa, to the Senate from Alaska. That's what motivated Alaskan's to adopt a special election system.

[standard]

I wouldn't exactly call degrees from Harvard and Columbia Law "nothing" nor would I characterize Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg's civic activities that way.

May I remind you that Mrs. Clinton had not been "in the legislative world at any point in her life" before SHE became a Senator, along with HER famous name and political connections. May I correct you in that Mrs. Schlossberg is definitely a New Yorker and that Mrs. Clinton, as First Lady, set back the cause of healthcare reform by twenty years: she wasn't "effective" on that particular score, in the least. Lastly: what conceivable logic connects what Mrs. Clinton did or didn't do to get herself elected in a state with which she had no previous connection and whether Gov. Paterson should exercise his authority and discretion to appoint a well-known, life-long New York Democrat to fill a vacant Senate seat in which she's able and willing to serve?

If Mrs. Clinton was so valuable in the Senate--and so high minded as not to put personal ambition above serving in a position to which she was elected--then why didn't she leave well enough alone and remain in the Senate? Finally, if it's acceptable for Mrs. Clinton to be appointed to the Obama Cabinet with no prior executive experience, then why is it wrong for Mrs. Schlossberg to be appointed to the Senate without having been a legislator?

[glorialovelace]

Treating a degree from an expensive private college as if it is experience -- or even an asset -- is the most foolish type of elitism. Especially if the holder of that degree is the daughter of a rich and famous alumnus.

Comparing Mrs. Schlossberg's "achievements" to Mrs. Clinton's is frankly a ridiculous piece of sophistry. Anybody who has read President Clinton's autobiography knows the extent of Hillary Clinton's participation in his campaigns and in his administration. For many purposes, it was indeed a co-Presidency.

[engineer68]

We are talking about a U.S. Senate seat. Mrs. Clinton was elected in NY and not appointed in 2000. Cabinet members are appointed by the President. If Mrs. Schlossberg wants to to be a Senator, she should wait and run in the 2010 special election.

[Doofus]

HRC was a non-NYer who worked very hard to earn the respect of NYers,
those from upstate especially. Caroline Kennedy IS a NYer who seems NOT
to be one, especially to upstaters. Also, HRC was & is a consummate politico
who apparently LOVES to campaign. You really can't say that about Caroline.

[glorialovelace]

"If Mrs. Clinton was so valuable in the Senate--and so high minded as not to put personal ambition above serving in a position to which she was elected--then why didn't she leave well enough alone and remain in the Senate?"

Because her President -- Mr. Obama -- asked her to serve. It is at HIS behest that she is changing jobs, not hers.

"Finally, if it's acceptable for Mrs. Clinton to be appointed to the Obama Cabinet with no prior executive experience, then why is it wrong for Mrs. Schlossberg to be appointed to the Senate without having been a legislator?"

Because that's how the system works. Senators are the representatives of the people who elect them. Hence they must court us by campaigning for those Senate seats. Cabinet ministers, on the other hand, are chosen by the President to advise him. The public has very little say in that process. And the President can fire Cabinet members at will. It is very difficult to get rid of an unsatisfactory elected legislator; to do that, you have to wait until the next election.

[1murillo]

The current system of having an appointment made - instead of an election - is best.

Special elections are costly, time consuming and might easily disrupt Senate work, depending on the number of elections occurring.

As it is, the appointed individual still must defend the seat in two years. We should trust our leaders to make a strong choice. It's true that not all appointments are perfect, but neither are elections. We will still vote for Senators during the ensuing cycle.

If we had elections, we'd restrict lawmakers from entering races for higher office.

It's an important but not an absolute power that governors have.

BTW, the Blagovejich episode shows that when seats are openly sold the accused will immediately be condemned. If the argument is that a special election is more democratic then we should follow suit with legislation and other appointments.

[Aaron Zelinsky - Huffpost Blogger]

That special elections cost more than appointments is factually accurate. The question is whether the extra cost is worth it. I think it is.

Consider first the seven states with one representative (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming). They hold statewide special elections for House vacancies. It seems wrong to hold a statewide primary for the House but not for the Senate.

As for the larger states, there are many ways to run the election that could reduce costs, such as early or mail-in voting. If constituents were angry enough at the cost, they could punish by voting for the opposition. This checks voluntary departure (imagine the pressure on Obama not to appoint Clinton if there was a concern the New York Senator might go Republican). In any case, it's not much to pay for democracy.

Disruption of Senate work is the weakest argument. Special elections happen relatively infrequently (for instance, there would be two under this plan), and the Senate will hardly grind to a halt because of a missing junior senator.

Although the new senator must stand in two years, there is a strong incumbency advantage.

As for trusting our leaders, I tend to prefer trusting the voters. This seems particularly apt when there is a governor from the minority party (think about California or my state, Connecticut). In that case, the minority governor could appoint a co-partisan and there would be nothing the majority could do until two years later.

[glorialovelace]

The reason for appointing an interim Senator is to make sure that seat is retained by the Democrats. Presumably, the election of 2010, would be preceded by a primary -- or something resembling one -- so there wouldn't be half a dozen Democratic candidates vs. just one Republican candidate.

Has there been anything in the papers about what the ground rules would be for Illinois' special election? Would it be a free-for-all with candidates of all parties vying for Obama's seat?

[Aaron Zelinsky - Huffpost Blogger]

Most of the states that have special senate elections have a special primary beforehand. That could easily be made the case in New York or Illinois (for instance, 45 days of primary and 45 days of general campaigning). That would obviate the worry about splintered parties.

As for the special election, I haven't yet seen serious discussion ground rules.

[glorialovelace]

Aside from the argument that holding an election is the democratic thing to do, this is also an awkward time for any Governor to be appointing anybody, particularly any person with influential or rich friends. What used to be business as usual has not become ethically ambiguous.

There is an interesting discussion about how much of a gray area there is even in some of Blagojevich's loutish behavior at:

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2008/12/12/opinion/1194835422227/bloggingheads-blagojevich-s-crime.html