Control of the 110th Senate could be in Republican hands

[Stranger in a strange land]

hate to burst your bubble, but it's not going to happen. Unless he actually dies or resigns (neither of which, fortunately, looks likely at this point) he will remain the Senator from South Dakota. Even if he doesn't recover enough to vote for Harry Reid as majority leader, Reid will still win by 50-49. That's not a tie, and Dick Cheney can't break it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In fact, I think there should be a law common to all states mandating the Governor to make an interim appointment from the party with which the previous incumbent was affiliated. That way the Senate does not change and the will of the electorate stands until such time as they elect a new senator

What can be any fairer than that, I ask?

Dave

That assumes that it's the task of the State to keep track of who is what party.  Thankfully I live in a sane State that doesn't keep track of which party a voter considers himself to be a part of, if any.

[Democratic Hawk]

In fact, I think there should be a law common to all states mandating the Governor to make an interim appointment from the party with which the previous incumbent was affiliated. That way the Senate does not change and the will of the electorate stands until such time as they elect a new senator

What can be any fairer than that, I ask?

Dave

That assumes that it's the task of the State to keep track of who is what party.  Thankfully I live in a sane State that doesn't keep track of which party a voter considers himself to be a part of, if any.

It assumes that the interim appointee is a known Democrat or Republican, in that they'd either hold or have held previous elected office as such

Dave

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In fact, I think there should be a law common to all states mandating the Governor to make an interim appointment from the party with which the previous incumbent was affiliated. That way the Senate does not change and the will of the electorate stands until such time as they elect a new senator

What can be any fairer than that, I ask?

Dave

That assumes that it's the task of the State to keep track of who is what party.  Thankfully I live in a sane State that doesn't keep track of which party a voter considers himself to be a part of, if any.

It assumes that the interim appointee is a known Democrat or Republican, in that they'd either hold or have held previous elected office as such

Dave

Mayoral races in South Carolina are non-partisan.  Same with the seats in the Nebraska Unicameral, and there are probably other States with similar situations where it would be feasible for there to be a credible and worthy pick for Senator who had no partisan record as an office holder.

[Saxwsylvania]

You know, Republicans on this forum wishing for Johnson's death just to get a GOP Senate is, well, wrong.

I haven't heard a single Republican wishing for Johnson's death.  I'm fairly certain that this is another figment of your looney imagination.

[Jake]

In fact, I think there should be a law common to all states mandating the Governor to make an interim appointment from the party with which the previous incumbent was affiliated. That way the Senate does not change and the will of the electorate stands until such time as they elect a new senator

What can be any fairer than that, I ask?

The will of the electorate is for the Senator they elected to be in office, not someone who's simply in the same party. Under your proposal, in the event of Sen. Chafee's death, Gov. Carcieri could appoint a staunch conservative such as Laffey to replace him. Would that be representative of who the people of the state elected to office? Of course not.

[Verily]

How about this:

If mike rounds gets to appoint a Republican, then

Republicans can Chair all committees, and Harry Reid can be the Senate Leader? Good Compromise?

No, that's a terrible compromise. There is no such thing as "Leader of the Senate" (the closest you can come is President Pro Tem, and that would be Byrd [eww...]).

[Verily]

How about this:

If mike rounds gets to appoint a Republican, then

Republicans can Chair all committees, and Harry Reid can be the Senate Leader? Good Compromise?

No, that's a terrible compromise. There is no such thing as "Leader of the Senate" (the closest you can come is President Pro Tem, and that would be Byrd [eww...]).

Reid as Majority Leader

Majority Leader is just a title. It bestows no power, unlike Speaker of the House. If the Majority Leader leads the Minority, then he's as good as Minority Leader.

[Joe Biden 2020]

No matter what happens to Johnson, (which I sincerely hope he makes a full recovery, not only to keep Harry Reid as Majority Leader, but for his family's sake as well), the Republicans will still have a LOT of power in the Senate because with it only being a 51-49 majority for the Democrats, that still leaves a tie very possible, because it is very possible that a Democrat will side with the Republicans on an issue, and that would give the Republicans the victory on that bill with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaker vote.  I just hope my party's majority leader, Harry Reid, knows that he's not going to win every bill with the Senate being so evenly split.  The Republicans will win some bills.

[Deano963]

No matter what happens to Johnson, (which I sincerely hope he makes a full recovery, not only to keep Harry Reid as Majority Leader, but for his family's sake as well), the Republicans will still have a LOT of power in the Senate because with it only being a 51-49 majority for the Democrats, that still leaves a tie very possible, because it is very possible that a Democrat will side with the Republicans on an issue, and that would give the Republicans the victory on that bill with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaker vote.  I just hope my party's majority leader, Harry Reid, knows that he's not going to win every bill with the Senate being so evenly split.  The Republicans will win some bills.

True, but it also works both ways - there's also just as good of a chance that on any given issue, a Republican Senator will side with the Democrats. Think Specter, Snowe, Collins, even Sununu and Gregg now that it is apparent that their conservatism does NOT play well in their turning-bluer-by-the-day home state of New Hampshire. They realize they will have to be more moderate if they hope to survive. Also look for Coleman and Smith to start taking more moderate positions now that both of them are in very real danger of losing thier seats in '08. Sure there are a few conservative Democrats you allude to (Nelson, Johnson, Salazar, etc) who will side with the republicans on some votes, but it looks as if there are even more combined liberal republicans and extremely vulnerable republican senators up for reelection in blue states in '08 who will break ransk as well.

[jimrtex]

In fact, I think there should be a law common to all states mandating the Governor to make an interim appointment from the party with which the previous incumbent was affiliated. That way the Senate does not change and the will of the electorate stands until such time as they elect a new senator

What can be any fairer than that, I ask?

How would that handle a Senator that had switched parties?

Better would be to require the election to fill a vacancy to be held within 60 days.  Congress clearly has authority to pass such a law under the time, place, manner of elections.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Better would be to require the election to fill a vacancy to be held within 60 days.  Congress clearly has authority to pass such a law under the time, place, manner of elections.

Yes and no.  The 17th Amendment didn't just copy the language on vacancies for the House and use it for the Senate.  It added some extra verbiage.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

It also didn't strike the language that gave the States the sole responsibility for the Place of chusing Senators.

However, I agree that the Time power, which is what is under discussion here would fall under Congress's purview.  However, that temporary appointment power is liked by the States and not just because of the political situations it can cause.  It enables them to save the expense of a statewide special election by waiting until the next general election to hold it.

[Democratic Hawk]

In fact, I think there should be a law common to all states mandating the Governor to make an interim appointment from the party with which the previous incumbent was affiliated. That way the Senate does not change and the will of the electorate stands until such time as they elect a new senator

What can be any fairer than that, I ask?

The will of the electorate is for the Senator they elected to be in office, not someone who's simply in the same party. Under your proposal, in the event of Sen. Chafee's death, Gov. Carcieri could appoint a staunch conservative such as Laffey to replace him. Would that be representative of who the people of the state elected to office? Of course not.

Under my proposal governors would appoint a member of the same party as that of the previous incumbent. If a Democrat passes away, a Democrat is appointed. Likewise for Republicans. It has no effect on the partisan composition of the Senate in that it benefits neither Democrats nor Republicans. Seems fair to me

Of course, if the voters don't approve of the interim senator, should he or she wish to contest the next scheduled election, then they can vote them out

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

No matter what happens to Johnson, (which I sincerely hope he makes a full recovery, not only to keep Harry Reid as Majority Leader, but for his family's sake as well), the Republicans will still have a LOT of power in the Senate because with it only being a 51-49 majority for the Democrats, that still leaves a tie very possible, because it is very possible that a Democrat will side with the Republicans on an issue, and that would give the Republicans the victory on that bill with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaker vote.  I just hope my party's majority leader, Harry Reid, knows that he's not going to win every bill with the Senate being so evenly split.  The Republicans will win some bills.

Very true. Not all Democrats will take the majority-majority position 100% of the time, nor will all Republicans take the minority-majority position 100% of the time

With that kind of slim majority (51/49), there's a plenty of scope for bi-partisanship

Dave

[Jake]

Under my proposal governors would appoint a member of the same party as that of the previous incumbent. If a Democrat passes away, a Democrat is appointed. Likewise for Republicans. It has no effect on the partisan composition of the Senate in that it benefits neither Democrats nor Republicans. Seems fair to me

The classic Dave Hawk "debate" tactic. Repeat your opinion and say that it's the best way. Don't bother to actually back it up though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a good argument for letting the Governor appoint anyone, and if the people don't like it, vote out the Governor and newly appointed Senator.

[Democratic Hawk]

Under my proposal governors would appoint a member of the same party as that of the previous incumbent. If a Democrat passes away, a Democrat is appointed. Likewise for Republicans. It has no effect on the partisan composition of the Senate in that it benefits neither Democrats nor Republicans. Seems fair to me

The classic Dave Hawk "debate" tactic. Repeat your opinion and say that it's the best way. Don't bother to actually back it up though.

Basically, I consider the interim appointment process in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Utah and Wyoming preferable to that a Democratic governor appointing a Democrat to replace a Republican or a Republican governor appointing a Republican to replace a Democrat

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Of course, if the voters don't approve of the interim senator, should he or she wish to contest the next scheduled election, then they can vote them out

Dave

This is a good argument for letting the Governor appoint anyone, and if the people don't like it, vote out the Governor and newly appointed Senator.

Now that's a fair point, but it doesn't change my opinion of what is preferable in the event of vacant Senate seats

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

In fact, I think there should be a law common to all states mandating the Governor to make an interim appointment from the party with which the previous incumbent was affiliated. That way the Senate does not change and the will of the electorate stands until such time as they elect a new senator

What can be any fairer than that, I ask?

How would that handle a Senator that had switched parties?

It wouldn't handle it. If a Senator makes a conscious decision to switch parties that's his call; though, I think they ought to resign their seat and seek re-election

Very different context to a senator passing away or a senator electing to resign because of involuntary incapacity, however

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep, I'd say that's a good way of going about filling vacant Senate seats

Dave

[jimrtex]

Better would be to require the election to fill a vacancy to be held within 60 days.  Congress clearly has authority to pass such a law under the time, place, manner of elections.

Yes and no.  The 17th Amendment didn't just copy the language on vacancies for the House and use it for the Senate.  It added some extra verbiage.

Actually it took the original language from Article I, Section 3, and replaced legislative election with popular election.  The original language includes a provision for appointment by the governor when the legislature was not in session.

It was inconceivable that a legislature would go two years without meeting, and with Congress only meeting a few months per year, the legislature could often elect the replacement the senator who would serve.

The Senate was strict about enforcing the constitutional provisions on vacancies.  If a legislature failed to choose a new senator, the temporary appointee of the governor would end his service at the time the legislature went into recess.  If the legislature was in session at the time of a vacancy, the governor could not appoint a temporary replacement, even if the legislature was unaware of the vacancy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The purpose of this language was to prevent Congress from directing where the legislature met, in effect dictating the location of the State capitals.  It illustrates how extensive the powers under the time, (place), manner clause are - Congress can legislate in all matters except one very particular area where they would in effect be legislating something that would grossly interfere with the state government.

The provision is now superfluous, since Congress could probably legislate the location of polling places under the 14th Amendment, or at least keep States from making it difficult to vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The temporary appointment power is liked by the state government because it takes power away from the voters.  Elected government officials are inherently anti-republican.  Their only concern about the expense of an election is what it would do to their campaign expenses.