Should there be a penalty for resignations, because of special election costs?

[Nichlemn]

Special elections are quite costly. A PA State Senate election is projected to cost about $200k. NJ's special Senate election was estimated to cost about $24 million (though that was Christie's fault).

The dollar values may seem like a drop in the bucket as far as total spending goes. But from an individual legislator's perspective, they can result in a significant misaligning of incentives. A politician might quit early just because they got offered a job that paid well. But the cost to the taxpayer of them quitting might run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (not to mention socially wasteful fundraising for successors). If they were totally financially responsible for the costs they imposed by quitting, they would think twice before quitting for relatively trivial reasons.

Now, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest politicians be 100% on the hook for the costs of them quitting. And you could give exemptions, like for health. But I think it's a good idea in principle to tie politician's incentives to the real costs of their decisions.

Another solution would be to forgo special elections held outside regular voting days entirely. So many House special elections could be done by appointment, for instance.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I don't think so.  What if the officeholder in question doesn't want to pay the special election costs?  Are they forced to complete the remainder of their term even if they stop showing up to work?

[Nichlemn]

I don't think so.  What if the officeholder in question doesn't want to pay the special election costs?  Are they forced to complete the remainder of their term even if they stop showing up to work?

It would be more along the lines of, you had a certain amount of pay withheld upon completion of your term that was forfeited if you resigned, like a bond.

[Indy Texas]

Special elections are quite costly. A PA State Senate election is projected to cost about $200k. NJ's special Senate election was estimated to cost about $24 million (though that was Christie's fault).

The dollar values may seem like a drop in the bucket as far as total spending goes. But from an individual legislator's perspective, they can result in a significant misaligning of incentives. A politician might quit early just because they got offered a job that paid well. But the cost to the taxpayer of them quitting might run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (not to mention socially wasteful fundraising for successors). If they were totally financially responsible for the costs they imposed by quitting, they would think twice before quitting for relatively trivial reasons.

Now, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest politicians be 100% on the hook for the costs of them quitting. And you could give exemptions, like for health. But I think it's a good idea in principle to tie politician's incentives to the real costs of their decisions.

Another solution would be to forgo special elections held outside regular voting days entirely. So many House special elections could be done by appointment, for instance.

Wouldn't hold up in court. But I tend to think that if the resignation occurs in the same calendar year that a regular election is going to happen anyway (i.e. this year), the seat ought to just remain vacant and whoever wins in November should get sworn in immediately.

Then you avoid the TX-22 situation from 2006 when Tom DeLay resigned and a special election was scheduled for the same day as the regular election. A Democrat won the regular election to take office in January. A Republican won the special election to hold office from the day after election day until January 3rd. So basically there was a congressman who was only in office for two months, most of which time the House was in recess anyway.

Making them pay to be allowed to quit sounds like a form of indentured labor and I doubt anyone on this forum would support it if, say, Wal-Mart told its employees it would have to pay them $50 to be allowed to quit their jobs to cover part of the hiring and training cost of their replacement.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No.  If you want to eliminate the cost of special elections, simply have the office be vacant until the next general election, or better yet designate that the runner up fills the post.  Yeah, if it were Alvin Greene rather Tim Scott who filled his seat, you can bet Jim DeMint would not have resigned his Senate seat for anything other the direst of personal reasons.  No way anyone would offer him a job outside the Senate.

[Indy Texas]

No.  If you want to eliminate the cost of special elections, simply have the office be vacant until the next general election, or better yet designate that the runner up fills the post.  Yeah, if it were Alvin Greene rather Tim Scott who filled his seat, you can bet Jim DeMint would not have resigned his Senate seat for anything other the direst of personal reasons.  No way anyone would offer him a job outside the Senate.

You assume Jim DeMint actually cares about his constituents and isn't just a self-serving shill for advocacy groups and the rich people who fund them. Besides, if Alvin Greene were in the Senate, that would just provide more kindle to rouse the ire of the Tea Party.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No.  If you want to eliminate the cost of special elections, simply have the office be vacant until the next general election, or better yet designate that the runner up fills the post.  Yeah, if it were Alvin Greene rather Tim Scott who filled his seat, you can bet Jim DeMint would not have resigned his Senate seat for anything other the direst of personal reasons.  No way anyone would offer him a job outside the Senate.

You assume Jim DeMint actually cares about his constituents and isn't just a self-serving shill for advocacy groups and the rich people who fund them. Besides, if Alvin Greene were in the Senate, that would just provide more kindle to rouse the ire of the Tea Party.

But the ire would be directed at DeMint because it would have been he and whatever idiot offered him a better paying gig that allowed Greene to be in the Senate.  Hence those advocacy groups would find someone other than DeMint.

[Nichlemn]

Making them pay to be allowed to quit sounds like a form of indentured labor and I doubt anyone on this forum would support it if, say, Wal-Mart told its employees it would have to pay them $50 to be allowed to quit their jobs to cover part of the hiring and training cost of their replacement.

I think a lot of that would be due to concerns about Wal-Mart's power over its employees, that doesn't really exist in the case of something like Congress.

 And actually, I think that could be a reasonable idea for Wal Mart, if implemented properly. There are lots of people that employees are reluctant to hire out of fear they'll spend a lot of time training them, only for them to depart shortly afterwards. Someone who quits early really does impose significant costs on employees, and it's because their incentives aren't aligned with employers' costs that this is an issue.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I don't think so.  What if the officeholder in question doesn't want to pay the special election costs?  Are they forced to complete the remainder of their term even if they stop showing up to work?

Imagine Christie doing that

[muon2]

In IL legislative vacancies are filled by appointment. The local political party leaders select the replacement who generally serves for the the remainder of the term. Here's the language from the IL Constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And what if the resigner were not part of a political party?

[Indy Texas]

In IL legislative vacancies are filled by appointment. The local political party leaders select the replacement who generally serves for the the remainder of the term. Here's the language from the IL Constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Appointments by party leaders and requiring an appointee be of the same party as the resignee are both Horrible Laws.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In IL legislative vacancies are filled by appointment. The local political party leaders select the replacement who generally serves for the the remainder of the term. Here's the language from the IL Constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Appointments by party leaders and requiring an appointee be of the same party as the resignee are both Horrible Laws.

How do you figure? They seem intuitively at least sensible to me.

[Mordecai]

No.

[muon2]

And what if the resigner were not part of a political party?

The Governor fills the vacancy, but the replacement must not be a member of a political party as defined by actions over the prior 23 months, such as running for or serving in an office from a party or signing partisan petitions.

[Hatman 🍁]

I like this idea, but wouldn't include resignations due to health reasons.

[muon2]

How often are special elections really needed, anyway? Most executives have an elected or appointed deputy who can fill their office if needed, and most legislatures are large enough that a few vacant seats won't cause any harm.

If a state senator leaves shortly after the beginning of a term, I don't think that the constituents would be happy to be without representation for as much as two years.

[muon2]

How often are special elections really needed, anyway? Most executives have an elected or appointed deputy who can fill their office if needed, and most legislatures are large enough that a few vacant seats won't cause any harm.

If a state senator leaves shortly after the beginning of a term, I don't think that the constituents would be happy to be without representation for as much as two years.

Well, that would achieve what the OP mentions (i.e. "tie politician's incentives to the real costs of their decisions"), albeit at a cost to their constituents. This is the status quo in the New York State Assembly, where there are eleven vacant seats because Governor Cuomo hasn't called any special elections (and isn't obligated to until November).

It seems to me that providing timely and appropriate representation for the people of a district should be the most important goal. It makes no sense to punish the public for the decisions of an official to vacate an office. They don't know that a member is prone to leave office when they elect that official.

[Indy Texas]

In IL legislative vacancies are filled by appointment. The local political party leaders select the replacement who generally serves for the the remainder of the term. Here's the language from the IL Constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Appointments by party leaders and requiring an appointee be of the same party as the resignee are both Horrible Laws.

How do you figure? They seem intuitively at least sensible to me.

Party chairs are not elected officials and democratic government precludes political party apparati being treated as organs of government and having the power to fill elected offices. Requiring an appointed replacement be of the same party implies that people do and should vote for parties rather than individuals, which sets a very bad precedent for how voters should behave.

[muon2]

In IL legislative vacancies are filled by appointment. The local political party leaders select the replacement who generally serves for the the remainder of the term. Here's the language from the IL Constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Appointments by party leaders and requiring an appointee be of the same party as the resignee are both Horrible Laws.

How do you figure? They seem intuitively at least sensible to me.

Party chairs are not elected officials and democratic government precludes political party apparati being treated as organs of government and having the power to fill elected offices. Requiring an appointed replacement be of the same party implies that people do and should vote for parties rather than individuals, which sets a very bad precedent for how voters should behave.

Two points worth mentioning - first is that in IL the party officials are elected during the primary. Elected party committeemen cast the votes for the replacements. Second is that in much of the world the party nominees on the ballot are selected by party leaders. A party-based primary election like that used in the US is quite rare in democratic governments.

[Kushahontas]

How about a method such as the French one?

[Sol]

In IL legislative vacancies are filled by appointment. The local political party leaders select the replacement who generally serves for the the remainder of the term. Here's the language from the IL Constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Appointments by party leaders and requiring an appointee be of the same party as the resignee are both Horrible Laws.

How do you figure? They seem intuitively at least sensible to me.

Party chairs are not elected officials and democratic government precludes political party apparati being treated as organs of government and having the power to fill elected offices. Requiring an appointed replacement be of the same party implies that people do and should vote for parties rather than individuals, which sets a very bad precedent for how voters should behave.

What's wrong with voting for parties? It may not be how it works normally, but what makes it so bad?

[New_Conservative]

No, but I get what you are saying OP.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In IL legislative vacancies are filled by appointment. The local political party leaders select the replacement who generally serves for the the remainder of the term. Here's the language from the IL Constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Appointments by party leaders and requiring an appointee be of the same party as the resignee are both Horrible Laws.

How do you figure? They seem intuitively at least sensible to me.

Party chairs are not elected officials and democratic government precludes political party apparati being treated as organs of government and having the power to fill elected offices. Requiring an appointed replacement be of the same party implies that people do and should vote for parties rather than individuals, which sets a very bad precedent for how voters should behave.

What's wrong with voting for parties? It may not be how it works normally, but what makes it so bad?

Plus, there are plenty of countries where that is how it works normally, and just because America isn't one of those countries and doesn't have a parliamentary system of government doesn't mean that we should cast aspersions on whether or not these sorts of things are compatible with democracy. If a temporary appointee--whose place will be filled by a democratic election at a later date--can't be straight-up appointed by the officeholder they're replacing (and yes, I think that the fact that they can't is entirely legitimate, since not all officeholders who leave their posts out of schedule do so under such noble circumstances as attaining a higher post or dying, and a person who may be leaving her post under ignoble circumstances certainly should not be rewarded with the right to decide how that post is to be filled), and if we're going to have temporary appointees in the first place, why is being appointed by the local leaders of that officeholder's party so much worse than being appointed by the governor of that officeholder's state, who didn't necessarily have any sort of relationship to the officeholder at all and may have received her mandate in an entirely different election cycle?