Old news but just in case you missed it.Type rest of the post here
Showing posts with label senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label senate. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Senate Democrats Announce Legislative Agenda
The Senate Democratic Caucus has released its legislative agenda for 2010 in a press release that we reprint below. The agenda includes Delegate Kirill Reznik's (D-39) bill preventing employers from using credit scores in hiring and promotion decisions. Additionally, the Senate will adopt a rule change this week requiring that committee votes be posted on-line within ten days, matching a similar move by the House.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Fixing Senate Vacancies, Part Three
By Marc Korman.
In Parts 1 and 2 we reviewed previous Senate appointments and the current efforts to reform the process. Ending uninhibited gubernatorial appointments is a good idea. But it has to be done right. There are two important issues that need to be factored into any change: continuity of representation and continuity of Congress.
Continuity of representation means the ability of a state or district to have a continuous voice in Congress. One of the strengths of the current Senate appointment process is that vacancies in the 45 states allowing appointments are short-lived. So the residents of a state with a vacancy are not at a disadvantage in Congress.
In the case of Senators of course, two individuals represent each voter in each state, so more often than not they will at least have some representation. Contrast that with the House of Representatives, where each voter only has one representative. There are no appointments to fill House seats, only special elections. That can leave extended periods of time with unrepresented Congressional districts. For example, when Bob Menendez was appointed New Jersey’s US Senator in 2006, his House seat was vacant for nine months.
The point is that any vacancy should be as short as possible so that residents are almost always represented in both Houses of Congress without significant disruption. Delegate Ali’s state bill ensures that by allowing temporary appointments until the results of a special election are certified. The federal reform proposals do not address the issue. The downside to temporary appointments is that they could give whoever is appointed a leg up in a special election. If that creates opposition, then perhaps temporary appointees ability to run could be limited, either by a law or an unofficial agreement as is the current case with the Senate appointee from Delaware.
Continuity of Congress is a more esoteric issue and one we will hopefully never have to deal with. The issue is how the legislative branch recovers from a catastrophic terrorist attack, for example if Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11, had crashed into the Capitol and created mass vacancies. For a while after 9/11, the issue received a lot of attention. A Congressional task force examined the issue, Congress actually passed legislation calling for expedited House elections, and a joint Brookings Institute/American Enterprise Institute Commission issued a report.
All of the continuity discussions focused on the House because Senate appointments made that body much easier to reestablish after an attack. But as more states pass Special Election laws or a Constitutional amendment is ratified, that ability becomes less certain.
Again, Delegate Ali’s bill addresses that issue by allowing temporary appointments. If temporary appointments are found to be unacceptable in all circumstances, then perhaps they can be used only in the case of mass vacancies, say if a quarter or more of the Senate is vacant.
There are two main objections I have heard to special elections: lack of participation and cost. It is true that special elections have a much lower turnout than regularly scheduled elections, but in the case of a US Senator the race is high profile enough that the problem is somewhat mitigated. As for cost, it is true that democracy is expensive.
It is time to reform the Gubernatorial process for replacing US senators and move to special elections. But as needed reform moves forward, legislators should remember that continuity of representation and continuity of Congress are important issues too.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Fixing Senate Vacancies, Part Two
By Marc Korman.
In Part 1, we reviewed some historical Senate vacancy appointments, including the recent appointments that have stirred interest in the topic of reform. In Part 2, we will look at state and federal efforts to reform the process.
The 17th Amendment, effective since 1913, says about vacancies:When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each 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.
All but the five states of Alaska, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Massachusetts allow their Governor to fill a Senate vacancy. Interestingly, Massachusetts allowed appointments until 2004. In that year, the Democratic legislature was concerned that Republican Governor Mitt Romney would appoint a Republican to replace John Kerry if he was elected president. The three states of Arizona, Hawaii, and Wyoming limit their Governor’s appointment power to the same political party as the outgoing senator.
Here in Maryland, Delegate Saqib Ali has introduced House Bill 369. The legislation would require Senate vacancies to be filled by Special Election. But until the Special Election, the Governor could make a temporary appointment. The legislation would not be enacted until 2015, after the current Governor will have an opportunity to serve two full terms.
At the Federal level, Senator Russ Feingold from Wisconsin has introduced a Constitutional amendment requiring elections to fill Senate vacancies. In the House, freshman Congressman Aaron Schock of Illinois has introduced a bill to require special elections, with the cost of conducting one being split between the state and the federal government. Since the 17th amendment specifically authorizes the state legislatures to empower governors to appoint, Congressman Schock’s proposal may not be enough to change the status quo.
So far, there has not been much legislative momentum for any of these proposals. Delegate Ali’s proposal has eleven cosponsors, five from Montgomery County. Senator Feingold and Congressman Schock both have two cosponsors. But there is interest outside of legislative bodies including from editorial boards and individual voters. Fighting for these changes may take years, but they are worth the effort to reform the process and give citizens a voice in electing their Senators. In Part 3, we will discuss some of the safeguards that should be included in the needed reform.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Fixing Senate Vacancies, Part One
By Marc Korman.
The four US Senate vacancies as a result of the election of President Obama have created lots of headlines. As a result, there are federal and state efforts for reforming the process whereby vacancies are filled by gubernatorial appointments. These reforms are necessary, but safeguards should be included as well. In Part 1, we will review some historical and recent Senate vacancy issues. In Part 2, we will examine the proposed reforms at the state and federal level. In Part 3, we will discuss some of the needed safeguards to ensure that Senate vacancy reform is done properly.
Since the 17th amendment established direct election of senators in 1913, 184 individuals have been appointed to the US Senate. Maryland is one of four states to have never had a Senate vacancy filled by appointment since the 17th amendment. Of the185 appointees, 63 did not seek reelection in the next election, excluding Ted Kaufman of Delaware who is not expected to seek election in his own right. 54 other appointees were defeated in their reelection efforts.
Some of these appointments have been monumental. For example, New Mexico appointee Dennis Chavez was the first Hispanic-American to win election in his own right, running as an incumbent. Georgia appointee Rebecca Felton was the first woman to serve in the Senate, though her appointment only lasted one day. Hattie Caraway of Arkansas became the second woman senator by appointment. She was then reelected the following year.
Several well known and impactful Senators also began their legislative careers as appointees, including: Former Vice President and 1984 Democratic nominee Walter Mondale (D-MN); former Senator President Pro Tempore and now disgraced Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK); Senator Arthur Vandenberg (R-MI), known for his 180 degree repositioning on American internationalism after World War II; Senator Harry Byrd (D-VA), a long serving and active segregationist; Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC), who led the Watergate investigation in the Senate; and Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH), a well known progressive and former boss of County Councilman Roger Berliner.
The most recent Senate vacancies have been something of a train wreck. Although the appointees may yet go on to careers of distinction, the messy path that brought them to Washington will linger. In Illinois, the vacancy led to the impeachment of a Governor and days of uncertainty as to whether appointee Roland Burris would be seated. In Delaware, a Biden loyalist has been appointed to hold the seat until the Vice President’s son is prepared to run. In Colorado, appointee Michael Bennet was an official little known outside of Denver who has never run for elective office. Finally, the soap opera of the New York senate vacancy left much to be desired.
These are not the first questionable US Senate appointments. In 2002, Senator Frank Murkowski was elected Alaska’s governor and had the opportunity to fill his own seat. He did so by appointing his daughter, current Senator Lisa Murkowski. That led to outcry in the state and a new statute requiring special elections for US Senate vacancies. When John F. Kennedy moved to the White House in 1961, Kennedy loyalist Benjamin Smith was appointed to JFK’s former Senate seat as a placeholder until younger brother Ted Kennedy was constitutionally old enough to run.
In Part 2, we will look at the state and federal efforts to clean up the Senate appointment process.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Senate Rules Change
The Washington Post covered failed Republican efforts to change the rules of the Senate to make it easier to fillibuster and to force Senate committees to vote on all bills. Both ideas were voted down on party-line votes. However, the Post missed what was the key rules change. The Senate has amended its rules to join the House of Delegates in prohibiting its members from offering constitutional amendments as amendments to another bill. This small change will prevent anti-gay marriage advocates from repeatedly trying to amend the Maryland Constitution as the Senate takes up other legislation.
At the same time, it doesn't prevent the Senate in taking up the issue. Indeed, Sen. Rich Madaleno informs me that opponents of gay marriage have filed a bill defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The bill has 13 sponsors or cosponsors, 10 Republicans and 3 Democrats. The Senate has 33 Democrats and 14 Republicans. The three Democratic cosponsors are James DeGrange (Anne Arundel), Norman Stone (Balt. County), and Roy Dyson (Southern MD). The four Republicans who are not cosponsors are E.J. Pipkin (Eastern Shore), Andrew Harris (Baltimore and Harford), Allan Kittleman (Howard and Carroll), and Donald Munson (Washington).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
