On the Appointment of Caroline Kennedy, or Any Other Non-Elected Individual to Fill the New York Senate Vacancy

I think that any failure on the part of Governor Paterson and our state government to reflect our essential identity as a representative constitutional democracy, by filling the vacant senatorial seat with any personnel outside of a mandate-qualified pool of elected officials, albeit officials holding lower state office, is to my feeble mind, founded on a primitive presumption which grievously suspends -- however well intended -- the democratic value, the moral imperative, and, I'll claim herein, the constitutionally binding imperative to ensure that there be a civic line of succession -- just as there is a line of succession for the President which insists by design, and with no small solemnity, that the replacement process reflect a people's mandate. And while the constitution does recognize the value of an un-elected appointee within the line of succession, it is only after going through a triple redundancy of elected public servants, that it arrives upon the uniquely appointed Secretary of State. Only after going though 3 elected public servants.

Of course, the senatorial selection process in this case is ultimately dependent on the prudence of the acting Governor, upon whom it is incumbent -- though he himself an appointee be -- to ensure that there is a mandate behind the replacement.

It is time for the Governor and the Attorney General to hold an examination of the state constitution that may require an amendment creating a line of succession through a lineage of elected officials holding lower office.

President-elect Barack Obama's campaign, in its mastery of the myriad intricacies of our electoral process, created a strategy which has helped citizens re-discover and re-examine participatory democracy in America, and Caroline Kennedy is to be commended for her efforts to boost participation, and for her own civic-mindedness. But if she wants to be senator - even if, like the many others who also want the position, she really, really believes, that she could do the job -- Ms. Kennedy must simply realize that what is being ignored with any appointment is an electoral process and its subsequent mandate, even if once-removed.

She is welcome to run for the senate in 2010, and I would give her and every other candidate, a fair listen. If she gets the Democratic nomination I'd very (very) likely vote for her over a Republican, although I'm expecting to see more independent candidates coming up, in our new political age.

But this appointment-seeking feels like a step backwards.

The scandal in Illinois over alleged attempts to sell a vacant senate seat is another alarming potential result of the growing erosion of the electoral process during the course of an appointment, and the entire process or lack thereof is in dire need of a national inventory-taking and re-vamping, with a mission toward restoring a paramount American value, even in as flawed a process as the mid-term replacement of an elected official: the public mandate.

Comments

[ESerafina42]

Personally, I love this one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7804407.stm):

'The Associated Press said "Kennedy offered no excuses for why she failed to vote in a number of elections since registering in New York City in 1988".

'"I was really surprised and dismayed by my voting record," she told AP. "I'm glad it's been brought to my attention."'

She needs to have it "brought to her attention" that she doesn't vote in elections?

Also:

'Salon's Joan Walsh writes: "Overall, [Kennedy] was slippery, and regrettably, because I admire her, I came away with the feeling that she views her single best credential for the Senate seat as her celebrity, and, secondarily, her wealth." '

[step45]

Bravo. Born in NYS and a resident of Manhattan for over 30 years, I would have no problem supporting a member of the Kennedy family. Placing anybody in the State Senate who has never EVER run for office or has given a hint of being interested in a political position is simply wrong. There are plenty of ELECTED candidates available for this spot on the Senate and that's where the Governor needs to make his choice.

[serindipity803]

My confidence is in Obama and Kennedy..Paterson is being reported as insecure and ambitious for his own gains; what about the people of New York???? Caroline cares about the people of New York,she is a New Yorker and in a position to do a lot of good for her state. Clinton was a political appointment and if you look closely at her record of perks for New York, they didn't fare well. She was visible to run for president, then and now, nothing more. Kennedy wants to help her state!!!! If Paterson is worried about his career then he should work WITH a Kennedy and an Obama, because that is where the country is headed.

[frustratedinohio]

Clinton was not a political appointment.

[meko]

As someone who canvassed on behalf of Obama (and for far longer than Caroline Kennedy's six weeks of support) I'm offended by the prospect of Caroline Kennedy being appointed to the senate. There are so many more committed men and women in the state of New York with actual achievements.

Lots of people want to help their state. But that interest doesn't get most of us considered for the senate. If Caroline Kennedy cares so much about New York, let her start by running for State Senate, or even voting in primaries and general elections on a regular basis.

[Doofus]

What on earth do the rules of Presidential succession have to do with
appointing an interim 'acting' Senator for NY? Unless there's an aspersion
to be cast at David Paterson as one who was only elected LIEUTENANT governor,
so it's not like he's an authentic NY Governor. (Or is it?) It's almost as if he is the 'acting'
governor, so who does he think he is, appointing an 'acting' Senator? Is that the problem?

[ESerafina42]

He was still ELECTED, even if only as Lt. Governor.

[DemocracyInAmerica]

This isn"t about the legitimacy of Governor Paterson, it"s about nothing more nor less than what I would expect from any Governor in any state in this situation, and that is to recognize that a constituency of one (which is an accurate phrase that is being used) is untenable when a senate seat is being filled. I think Governor Paterson is required to re-examine the state constitution alongside the Attorney General because, as has been pointed out, Senate seats are won by election and they have federal duties. It simply emerges as requisite that we have a constitutional line of succession from a pool of lower, elected officials. It"s imperfect, but it"s constitutional common sense, which I advocate not for the sake of constitutional common sense but as an effective measure of achieving transparency and satisfying the process-inherent constitutional demands for a public mandate. Michael Vazquez

[Doofus]

It's not about Paterson at all, unless he were to sell the seat. As governor,
he has to follow the NY state law, which says to appoint someone, in the
interim til 2010. The Senate might assert itself to reject his choice, but
that's not so much Constitutional as procedural, under Senate rules.

Sure, there's US law about Presidential succession, and there are about
50 different possible ways for states to decide about temporarily filling
a vacant Senate seat, and there's no particularly strong connection
between these two matters.

It's not up to Paterson, as NY's chief executive, to 're-examine the state
constitution'. Rather, he has to follow the law, as it's written.

[Anonani]

A day late and a dollar short. The time to call in to question the dictates of your state's law is not when you don't like the way things are going. Changing the rules mid-stream is contrary to the spirit and intent of those who proposed the law and got it passed. Now after this appointment is done, then and only then would such a effort make sense. This nation and its states take pride in abiding by the rule of law. This time is no different. Have confidence in the process and your governor.

[DemocracyInAmerica]

There is no linear "stream" when there's a Senate vacancy -- it is a happenstance occurrence, which on the merits of its clearly federal implications, and I believe, its constitutional underpinnings, is worthy of legislative review, and this could be done without any procedural violation. You're asking for "faith" in a single public servant at whose discretion is incorrectly placed the power to ignore the imperative of a mandate in a Senatorial replacement. Which also means that the "process" you also require faith in, doesn't really exist. By way of a riddle, and a feeble attempt at humor: What is the sound of one person voting? My answer: An appointment is not a process. Additionally, what I am advocating is not strategic on behalf of any party, other than the electorate at large. We can figure this out, in the interest of the rule of law you invoke.

[Anonani]

Your argument is flawed from its inception. The "federal implications" likely existed and were taken into consideration by the State of New York when it decided to have confidence (my word) in the governor to make this appointment. Personally, I am not asking for anyone to have "faith" in anything. It is not my law but it is indeed a process that has been determined by State law. Like it or not, it is what it is. Good luck on convincing anyone to do this your way! If I were Governor, I would ignore you and those who believe as you do ... and that is likely the outcome of this discourse.