The pathology that is Rod Blagojevich to one side, we are going through a rare period in which federal legislative appointments (i.e., gubernatorial appointments to fill vacant seats in Congress) are in the public eye. Four seats (NY, Illinois, Delaware, and Colorado) have become vacant simultaneously, something that I would guess never has happened since passage of the Seventeenth Amendment (does anyone know for sure?). And to call the current time a circus does not capture the insanity.
The events in Illinois have been well-documented. In New York, we have one potential candidate actively campaigning for the job, with her strongest apparent qualification being her last name. Meanwhile, we have the governor tossing around the idea of seeking out a “caretaker” or “placeholder” appointee (names being tossed around include Bill Clinton and Mario Cuomo)–someone who will accept the appointment on a promise or understanding that he will not run for the position (thus reaping the benefits of incumbency or name recognition) in the special election. In Delaware, the first idea floated was to appoint the son of the current seat holder. And in Colorado, it appears the governor is going to surprise everyone by appointing an unknown local official–the superintendent of Denver schools, who purportedly has earned high marks for his work with the Denver school system, but who otherwise lacks name recognition, experience running for office or raising money, and legislative experience.
The reportage on these appointments reflects a media (and perhaps popular?) discomfort with the idea of appointed legislators, a sense that appointments are undemocratic and thus somehow inappropriate, demanding strict limits on who can be appointed and how the appointment can be made. Sandy Levinson pointed to one example.
I find this attitude towards appointments unfortunate for two reasons.
First, it ignores that the alternative is no (or unequal) representation for some portion of the public for the period of time it takes to organize and hold an election–anywhere from three months to two years. Since it is hard to imagine a large state (such as New York or Illinois) being able to hold a statewide election in less than three months, eliminating appointments means the People of that state are deprived of their constitutionally guaranteed equal representation in the Senate during that time. Which is less democratic–an appointed representative or no representation at all? I would suggest the latter. And if appointments are the more democratic approach, doesn’t it make the most sense to give the governor full reign to select the best available person? And that should include someone who might be willing and able to seek election and continue to serve in the seat. Because while a placeholder appointee will be unable to use the advantages of incumbency in the subsequent election, neither will he be able to bring the experience and expertise he has gained while filling the seat (and at least
Comments
Good point. There initially was some noise about a showdown there, with rumors that MN’s GOP Governor would appoint someone to hold the seat until the recount is finished (on the assumption that Franken will win), which would butt up against the Senate’s power to determine when a seat is vacant. This never made it beyond rumor and I do not think anything will come of it.
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Jan 3, 2009 8:26:50 PM
Don’t forget the recount-induced vacancy in MN…
Posted by: AL | Jan 3, 2009 7:51:22 PM