Filling of vacant Senate or House seat

[UK.USfan]

Hi

One from McCain, Clinton and Barack will become the next President in November, which will leave a Senate seat vacancy in either AZ, NY or IL.
So my question is whats the protocol for filling that vacancy?. Is the vacancy filled by the State Senate/House or Governor?. Does the same apply to House seats when they become vacant?.

Here in the UK we have by-elections where the voters go back to the polls to vote again for an MP when the seat becomes vacant either through death or resignations etc.

Thanks.

[they don't love you like i love you]

In each state, the Governor will appoint a replacement. In House elections, a special election is held.

[Nutmeg]

In most states, the governor appoints a replacement to vacant Senate seats.  A few state legislatures have taken away this right from the governor and reserved it to themselves or at least limited the governor's leeway in choosing the replacement.  Arizona has some restriction, but I'm not sure what it is.

House vacancies are filled by special election.

[7,052,770]

In Mississippi, if the vacancy occurs in an election year, the governor appoints someone to serve until the next election, when there's a special election.
If it occurs not in an election year, then the special election occurs within 90 days of the vacancy, unless the governor has no scruples, doesn't care about fairness, and has the Supreme Court wrapped around his finger, then he can cheat and schedule it any day he wants.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

In Arizona, the Governor is required to appoint a replacement Senator of the same party as the departing Senator. I do not believe there is any similar restriction in Illinois or New York.

[Verily]

Arizona requires that the replacement be of the same party. I believe this is achieved by the same way as Wyoming (which had a Democratic Governor appoint a Republican Senator to replace another Republican in 2007), in which the state party (in this case, the Republicans) submits a shortlist to the Governor from which the Governor chooses.

In Illinois and New York, the Governors are also Democrats, so it will basically just be their discretion. The replacement for Clinton has been discussed a lot, but the replacement for Obama is pretty up in the air.

[UK.USfan]

In each state, the Governor will appoint a replacement. In House elections, a special election is held.

What happens if the Governor is not from the same Party as the previous incumbant of the Senate seat?. For example AZ where the Governor Janet Napolitano is a Dem, could she appoint a Dem Senator to replace McCain or will her appointment have to be GOP?.

Also when you say 'special elections' for House members, does that mean voters go back to the polls to cast their votes?


Thanks.

[Хahar 🤔]

In each state, the Governor will appoint a replacement. In House elections, a special election is held.

What happens if the Governor is not from the same Party as the previous incumbant of the Senate seat?. For example AZ where the Governor Janet Napolitano is a Dem, could she appoint a Dem Senator to replace McCain or will her appointment have to be GOP?.

Also when you say 'special elections' for House members, does that mean voters go back to the polls to cast their votes?


Thanks.

In most states, the Governor can appoint anyone, but in Arizona, Napolitano can only appoint a Republican.

And a special election is like a by-election.

[UK.USfan]

In most states, the Governor can appoint anyone, but in Arizona, Napolitano can only appoint a Republican.


So its possible that a Governor in some States can chose a replacement from their own party where the previous incumbent was from another?. If the Senate was close 51-49 like it is now, this sort of decision could be very influential in my opinion. Has this happened at all?

Thanks

[Хahar 🤔]

In most states, the Governor can appoint anyone, but in Arizona, Napolitano can only appoint a Republican.


So its possible that a Governor in some States can chose a replacement from their own party where the previous incumbent was from another?. If the Senate was close 51-49 like it is now, this sort of decision could be very influential in my opinion. Has this happened at all?

Thanks

Many times. The 107th Congess, especially, had this happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_United_States_Congress

[Verily]

In most states, the Governor can appoint anyone, but in Arizona, Napolitano can only appoint a Republican.


So its possible that a Governor in some States can chose a replacement from their own party where the previous incumbent was from another?. If the Senate was close 51-49 like it is now, this sort of decision could be very influential in my opinion. Has this happened at all?

Thanks

Many times. The 107th Congess, especially, had this happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_United_States_Congress

Not for the same reason. Jeffords defected, he wasn't appointed to replace a Republican. Although there probably has been a time when control of Senate changed hands as the result of an appointment, I can't think of an example.

[Хahar 🤔]

In most states, the Governor can appoint anyone, but in Arizona, Napolitano can only appoint a Republican.


So its possible that a Governor in some States can chose a replacement from their own party where the previous incumbent was from another?. If the Senate was close 51-49 like it is now, this sort of decision could be very influential in my opinion. Has this happened at all?

Thanks

Many times. The 107th Congess, especially, had this happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_United_States_Congress

Not for the same reason. Jeffords defected, he wasn't appointed to replace a Republican. Although there probably has been a time when control of Senate changed hands as the result of an appointment, I can't think of an example.

It should have happened at the end, but it didn't because Congress wasn't in session.

[Verily]

In most states, the Governor can appoint anyone, but in Arizona, Napolitano can only appoint a Republican.


So its possible that a Governor in some States can chose a replacement from their own party where the previous incumbent was from another?. If the Senate was close 51-49 like it is now, this sort of decision could be very influential in my opinion. Has this happened at all?

Thanks

Many times. The 107th Congess, especially, had this happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_United_States_Congress

Not for the same reason. Jeffords defected, he wasn't appointed to replace a Republican. Although there probably has been a time when control of Senate changed hands as the result of an appointment, I can't think of an example.

It should have happened at the end, but it didn't because Congress wasn't in session.

Yes, but that was a special election, not an appointment. Jean Carnahan was appointed to fill her husband's seat in 2000, which didn't change party hands, then was defeated in a special election in 2002. Because it was a special election, the results came into effect immediately rather than in the next January.

[Joe Republic]

It nearly happened in December 2006, after Tim Johnson (D-SD) suffered that stroke.  If he'd died, Governor Mike Rounds (R) would have been empowered to appoint a Republican to replace him, thus transforming the Senate from 49-49-2 Democratic control to 50-48-2 Republican control.

And when Paul Coverdell (R-GA) of Georgia died in 2000, Gov. Roy Barnes (D) appointed Zell Miller (D) to replace him, although that didn't switch control of the Senate.

[they don't love you like i love you]

It nearly happened in December 2006, after Tim Johnson (D-SD) suffered that stroke.  If he'd died, Governor Mike Rounds (R) would have been empowered to appoint a Republican to replace him, thus transforming the Senate from 49-49-2 Democratic control to 50-48-2 Republican control.

And when Paul Coverdell (R-GA) of Georgia died in 2000, Gov. Roy Barnes (D) appointed Zell Miller (D) to replace him, although that didn't switch control of the Senate.

That's a bit of a stretch...

[Хahar 🤔]

It's possible that it occurred in the 47th (1881-3), but Wikipedia shines very little light on this.

[Verily]

It's possible that it occurred in the 47th (1881-3), but Wikipedia shines very little light on this.

The Senate wasn't elected at the time anyway, except in a handful of states (I think).

[Хahar 🤔]

It's possible that it occurred in the 47th (1881-3), but Wikipedia shines very little light on this.

The Senate wasn't elected at the time anyway, except in a handful of states (I think).

But were Senators appointed in the case of a vacancy, or is that a post-17th Amendment innovation?

[Verily]

It's possible that it occurred in the 47th (1881-3), but Wikipedia shines very little light on this.

The Senate wasn't elected at the time anyway, except in a handful of states (I think).

But were Senators appointed in the case of a vacancy, or is that a post-17th Amendment innovation?

The rules were very inconsistent on how they were appointed in the first place (some by state legislatures, some by governors, some by governors requiring the approval of the state legislature, etc.), so replacement appointments probably shouldn't count.

[Brittain33]

It nearly happened in December 2006, after Tim Johnson (D-SD) suffered that stroke.  If he'd died, Governor Mike Rounds (R) would have been empowered to appoint a Republican to replace him, thus transforming the Senate from 49-49-2 Democratic control to 50-48-2 Republican control.

And when Paul Coverdell (R-GA) of Georgia died in 2000, Gov. Roy Barnes (D) appointed Zell Miller (D) to replace him, although that didn't switch control of the Senate.

That's a bit of a stretch...

At the time, Miller was believed to be a solid if conservative Democrat. He didn't go pseudo-Republican until he'd won election in his own right in 2000 and George W. Bush came to Washington, giving him Republican initiatives he could sign on to.

[Хahar 🤔]

It's possible that it occurred in the 47th (1881-3), but Wikipedia shines very little light on this.

The Senate wasn't elected at the time anyway, except in a handful of states (I think).

But were Senators appointed in the case of a vacancy, or is that a post-17th Amendment innovation?

The rules were very inconsistent on how they were appointed in the first place (some by state legislatures, some by governors, some by governors requiring the approval of the state legislature, etc.), so replacement appointments probably shouldn't count.

Hmm. I see now. I'm still not sure which state it was from, though.