User:Theleekycauldron/Appointments to the United States Senate: Difference between revisions

 

Line 42: Line 42:

=== Empowerment ===

=== Empowerment ===

The Seventeenth Amendment allows state legislatures to “empower the executive thereof” to fill vacancies, but the legislature does not have to do so. In [[Kentucky]], [[North Dakota]], [[Oregon]], [[Rhode Island]], and [[Wisconsin]], the state legislature has not given the governor this power, and vacancies are instead filled by special election. This is sometimes done for political reasons: The [[Massachusetts General Court]], controlled by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrats]], overrode [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] governor [[Mitt Romney]]’s veto and took away power to make appointments, fearing that if Massachusetts Democratic Senator [[John Kerry]] won [[2004 United States presidential election|the presidency in 2004]], Romney would appoint a Republican to take his seat. Kerry lost that election, but in 2009, Massachusetts Democratic Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] died. By this time, Democrat [[Deval Patrick]] had become the governor, and Democrats needed to reach 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to pass health care reform, so the General Court reversed itself and restored the governor’s appointment power. The Republican-controlled [[Kentucky General Assembly]] stripped its governor, Democrat [[Andy Beshear]], of his appointment power over his veto in 2024; at the time, there were concerns about the health of Republican Senator [[Mitch McConnell]], although supporters of the bill said that was irrelevant.

The Seventeenth Amendment allows state legislatures to “empower the executive thereof” to fill vacancies, but the legislature does not have to do so. In [[Kentucky]], [[North Dakota]], [[Oregon]], [[Rhode Island]], and [[Wisconsin]], the state legislature has not given the governor this power, and vacancies are instead filled by special election. This is sometimes done for political reasons: The [[Massachusetts General Court]], controlled by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrats]], overrode [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] governor [[Mitt Romney]]’s veto and took away power to make appointments, fearing that if Massachusetts Democratic Senator [[John Kerry]] won [[2004 United States presidential election|the presidency in 2004]], Romney would appoint a Republican to take his seat. Kerry lost that election, but in 2009, Massachusetts Democratic Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] died. By this time, Democrat [[Deval Patrick]] had become the governor, and Democrats needed to reach 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to pass health care reform, so the General Court reversed itself and restored the governor’s appointment power. Republican-controlled [[Kentucky General Assembly]] stripped its governor, Democrat [[Andy Beshear]], of his appointment power over his veto; at the time, there were concerns about the health of Republican Senator [[Mitch McConnell]], although supporters of the bill said that was irrelevant.

* https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/08/06/how-do-states-fill-vacancies-in-the-us-senate-it-depends-on-the-state/

* https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/08/06/how-do-states-fill-vacancies-in-the-us-senate-it-depends-on-the-state/

Line 50: Line 50:

=== Constraints on gubernatorial power ===

=== Constraints on gubernatorial power ===

Some state legislatures, in empowering the governor to fill vacancies, restrict who the governor is allowed to appoint, or specify that the governor cannot leave the seat empty:

Some state legislatures, in empowering the governor to fill vacancies, restrict who the governor is allowed to appoint:

* In Arizona, Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming, the appointed senator must be of the same party

* In Arizona, , , the the

* In [[Hawaii]], [[Maryland]], [[Montana]], [[North Carolina]], [[West Virginia]], and [[Wyoming]], the party of the deceased senator gives a list of names to the governor, who then can only appoint a listed person to fill the vacancy.

* In [[Utah]], the state legislature gives a list of names to the governor, who is similarly restricted to only appointing a person on the list.

* In [[Connecticut]], the governor’s choice must be confirmed by a two-thirds majority of both houses of the [[Connecticut General Assembly]].

States also impose other constraints on the governor or the appointed senator:

* In Connecticut, the governor cannot make an appointment within a year of the term expiring.

{{clear}}<!–rm me before publishing–>

* In Hawaii, the governor cannot decline to make an appointment.{{Sfn|Amar|2013}}

* In Oklahoma, the appointed senator has to swear an oath not to run for the office in the next election.

* https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/08/06/how-do-states-fill-vacancies-in-the-us-senate-it-depends-on-the-state/

* https://fordhamdemocracyproject.com/2024/10/28/reforms-for-filling-vacancies-in-the-u-s-senate-and-house-of-representatives/

== Appointed senators ==

== Appointed senators ==

Appointments to the United States Senate are made under the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allows the governor of a U.S. state to temporarily fill vacancies that open in the middle of a senator’s term through death, resignation, or removal. blah blah blah blah

Prior to the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, governors commonly filled Senate vacancies that occurred while the state legislature, which was primarily responsible for the selection of senators, was in recess; however, they were not allowed to do so in cases where the legislature had met, but failed to elect.

When the United States Constitution was originally ratified, state legislatures were given the power to elect members to the United States Senate, the upper house of the United States Congress.^[1] However, the state governor held the power to “make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature” if a seat became vacant while the legislature was in recess.^[2] From 1789 to 1913, governors successfully appointed 181 members to such vacancies in the Senate.

The first time a governor attempted to fill a vacant Senate seat was in 1794, when Delaware governor Joshua Clayton appointed Kensey Johns to replace George Read,^[a] after the state legislature failed to appoint a successor.^[5] The Senate voted 20 to 7 in refusing to seat Johns, reasoning that the governor’s appointment had been unconstitutional. The vacancy was not filled until Henry Latimer, who was elected by the state legislature, was seated on February 7, 1795. The practice of rejecting nominees appointed following legislative failure to fill a vacant seat continued through the 19th and early 20th centuries. Johns’ case was specifically cited as precedent in the opposition to the appointment of Matthew Quay in 1900, as it was considered to have illustrated the intentions of the Framers.

As early as 1826, political reformers were arguing that senators should be elected by the people, rather than the state legislatures. The movement to “democratize American government”, as historian George Haynes called it, gradually gained more support over the next century as the states expanded suffrage, converted appointed positions to elected offices, and created initiative and referendum processes. In 1866, the U.S. Congress passed a law regulating the way states elected senators, requiring simultaneous participation between both houses of a bicameral legislature; some amendments to the proposed bill had intended to resolve legislative deadlock issues, but did not pass. The law led to a wave of state legislatures deadlocking in senatorial elections, often settling on dark horse candidates; this trend became an impetus for the movement to elect senators directly.

Starting in 1875, states began implementing and refining ways to have the public nominate their preferred senatorial candidates and pressure state legislators to formally elect them. State pressure on the U.S. Congress to amend the Constitution increased; Congress, facing the threat of the states possibly forming a “runaway” constitutional convention that could amend the Constitution not just on this topic, but many others, passed what would become the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1912, providing for the direct election of senators; it was ratified into law by the states the year after.^[11]

• Also more recent events, which might be useful

Upon its ratification in 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment allowed state legislatures to “empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct”.^[12]

Historically, many governors appointed “seat warmers” with little political experience, who did not typically run for re-election.

• initial cases
• notable cases throughout years
• recent examples & rate, maybe

The Seventeenth Amendment allows state legislatures to “empower the executive thereof” to fill vacancies, but the legislature does not have to do so. In Kentucky, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin, the state legislature has not given the governor this power, and vacancies are instead filled by special election. This is sometimes done for political reasons: The Massachusetts General Court, controlled by Democrats, overrode Republican governor Mitt Romney‘s veto and took away power to make appointments, fearing that if Massachusetts Democratic Senator John Kerry won the presidency in 2004, Romney would appoint a Republican to take his seat. Kerry lost that election, but in 2009, Massachusetts Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy died. By this time, Democrat Deval Patrick had become the governor, and Democrats needed to reach 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to pass health care reform, so the General Court reversed itself and restored the governor’s appointment power. In 2024, the Republican-controlled Kentucky General Assembly stripped its governor, Democrat Andy Beshear, of his appointment power over his veto; at the time, there were concerns about the health of Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, although supporters of the bill said that was irrelevant.

Some state legislatures, in empowering the governor to fill vacancies, restrict who the governor is allowed to appoint:

• In Arizona, Nevada, and Oklahoma, the governor must appoint a senator of the same party as the previous senator.
• In Hawaii, Maryland, Montana, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming, the party of the deceased senator gives a list of names to the governor, who then can only appoint a listed person to fill the vacancy.
• In Utah, the state legislature gives a list of names to the governor, who is similarly restricted to only appointing a person on the list.
• In Connecticut, the governor’s choice must be confirmed by a two-thirds majority of both houses of the Connecticut General Assembly.

States also impose other constraints on the governor or the appointed senator:

• In Connecticut, the governor cannot make an appointment within a year of the term expiring.
• In Hawaii, the governor cannot decline to make an appointment.
• In Oklahoma, the appointed senator has to swear an oath not to run for the office in the next election.

• The ones that run for reelection
  • The ones that win
  • The ones that don’t
• The seat-warmers
• The self-appointments

Appointed senators who decide to run for re-election generally do not enjoy the same political incumbency advantage as non-appointed senators, in both party primaries and general elections.^[15] In a 1999 study, James D. King of the University of Wyoming observed that the success of appointed senators in party primaries increases with a more partisan voting history and decreases with a more experienced primary challenger candidate to a statistically significant degree. King noted that challenger experience in general elections also affected the outcomes of general elections to a statistically significant degree.

bullet point notes from King of statistically significant factors yay:

• party primaries
  • challenger quality (true for both appointed & non-appointed)
  • voting history (true for both appointed & non-appointed)
  • prior experience of the appointed senator doesn’t matter(?)
• general elections
  • challenger quality (true for both appointed & non-appointed)
  • self-appointments suck
  • voting history not statistically significant as party primaries (this makes sense, because party primaries prefer more extreme candidates)

Self-appointments to the Senate occur when a governor appoints themselves to a vacant Senate seat. According to King, these senators tend to perform poorly in subsequent elections.

Donnelly et al.