New law letting voters fill senate vacancies to be introduced (in MN)

[question everything]

Source: KSTP

In light of the current situation in Illinois and New York, two Minnesota lawmakers plan to introduce legislation in the next session that would give voters the right to replace vacant US Senate seats. Currently, the governor has sole authority to appoint someone to that position.

(snip)

State Representative Ryan Winkler and Senator Ann Rest, both D FLers , plan to introduce a bill when the Legislature convenes Jan. 6 that would require a special election in Minnesota to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy.

(snip)

"This proposal in no way reflects a lack of confidence in (Republican) Governor Tim Pawlenty's integrity in making a decision to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate," said Winkler. "Regardless of who the governor may be, voters should get to decide who their senator will be. We're introducing this legislation before we know who the voters chose as our next senator to show that this is a needed reform."

(snip)

Marty Seifert, the Republican leader in the Minnesota House , is throwing his support behind the idea





Read more: http://kstp.com/article/stories/S724586.shtml?cat=1

[Blue_In_AK]

1. It's a good idea.

That's what Alaska did.

[customerserviceguy]

15. Alaska is a fairly wealthy state

with a small, although spread out, population. I'm wondering what the mechanics would be of holding a quickie election when a Senator gets elected to another office or is deceased. Most people would need sufficient time to build a campaign staff and raise donations.

Or, they could hold a free-for-all like California did when they recalled Gray Davis. That would favor famous people like Schwartzenegger.

On the surface, it sounds like a good idea, but like everything else, the devil is in the details.

[Loudmxr]

2. Gov't by the people, for the people, sound pretty good. Think they can do it??

[Auggie]

3. Should be the law of the land

[and-justice-for-all]

4. Indeed...nt

[SoCalDem]

5. Agreed...but with a few caveats

"filling" a seat is not "winning an election" ..Usually speed is of the essence, and the tenure of the term is never more than 2 years, because of the current federal limitations, so it's unfair to expect someone to be in a position that presents itself in NY...appointed until '10, then run again..and again in '12 when the normal 6-yr cycle repeats.

That's a LOT of money to expect one person or several to have to spend & raise in such a short time..escpecially when it means they will spend less time actually BEING the senator, because of all the fundraising they will have to do..

I would prefer the legislature , the governor, and the exiting senator (unless he/she dies) to submit 5 or 6 names each, and then the names that repeat on the lists...say the top 3 make it onto a ballot.. for the FIRST go-round..and then to have the 6-yr cycle RE-set with the next 2 yr election, so they only have to run ONCE after the appointment.

Appointmnets rarely happen anyway..

[fasttense]

6. Be careful what you wish for.

Special elections tend to get low voter turnout and little grass-roots participation. Often the media fails to cover the elections even in states most affected by the special election.

The fewer people who vote and participate in an election, the more likely a Republicon is to win. Republicons, Not Democrats, tend to more often win special elections.

It sound great on the surface but in reality, special elections are a boon to Republicons.

[fasttense]

7. Deleted, double post.

[Wizard777]

8. The laws will be invalid. They'll have to change the US Constitution.

[question everything]

9. Why? I think that half the states now fill seats with special elections

And while there, there should be a runoff elections when no one got more than 50% of the votes. I have to wonder about the cost, so far, for recounting the Coleman-Franken ballots and whether we would have been better off having a run off elections, the way it was in GA.

[Wizard777]

11. Because nothing the state can do can change the US Constitution.

That's where the change would have to be made. All a candidate in that election would have to do if they lost is convince the Governor to appoint them. Then challenge the election in court as being Unconstitutional. SCOTUS would overturn the law and allow the Governor to appoint. Then you have a big outcry when the loser of the illegal election ends up with the seat after the Governor legally appoints them to the Senate. They could do that for vacancies to the State Senate. But not the Federal Senate. That's governed by the US Constitution.

[question everything]

12. Read post 10, below.

Apparently the legislative body can mandate new elections.

Many states already do so.

[Wizard777]

13. I saw that. When you say Congressional Vacancy. I think Article I Section 3.

I stand corrected. So has the state legislature given the Governor the authority to call a special election? If not we're right back to Article I Section 3 with the governor making a recess appointment. Any laws passed now could not be retroactively applied to this preexisting vacancy. But there is some room to argue when the vacancy actually occurs.

[suston96]

10. Here is what the US Constitution says: Seventeenth Amendment.......

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.

The states already have the power to call elections. All they have to do is enact state laws mandating them.

The reason for the appointment power is obvious. Elections take a while and states will be without representation in the Senate pending elections.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

14. " ... Tim Pawlenty's integrity ... " bwaahhhhhhhhh!

Now that's just funny.

Keep in mind that I not only live in Minnesota, but actually live in the district he once represented ... he was *soooo* hoping a VP run with McCain would allow him to skip the state before the poor work he has done as governor here came to light. The year 2009 is gonna be very bad for the Tool.