By Patrick Appel
A reader writes:
There are two reasons – one major and one minor – to give the Governor the power to appoint a Senator until a special election can take place.
The major reason is speed.
It takes time to hold a special election and the state loses half of its Senate representation in the interim. Actually, I think the Constitution should be amended so that House seats can be temporarily filled in the same fashion. Aside from the principle of full representation, imagine what would happen in the case of a military or terrorist attack that wiped out Congress – the country would have no legislature for a few months while states (being in whatever shape as a result of the attack) tried to hold elections. A governor can fill a spot instantly.
The minor reason is cost and the integrity of the electoral process. Special elections held outside of the "normal" time for elections are expensive and, because of the short time within which they must take place, give an advantage to candidates who can instantly fund their campaigns. Imagine, e.g., the need to have 2 or 3 such elections in a short period of time because you lose a couple of Senators in a row – that kind of thing.
Neither reason, however, means that you can’t create mechanisms that make it more difficult for the Governor to act corruptly in naming a temporary replacement: 1. you can decide to accept the cost and make it easier to hold a special election so that whoever the governor appoints is only there for a limited period; 2. you can put limits (as some states do) on the Governor’s choices – requiring that the temporary Senator be from the same party as the departing one, that he be from a list of persons chosen by the legislature or the departing Senator’s party or a commission, etc.
There’s nothing valuable about letting the Governor appoint whoever he wants – but there is some importance in allowing him to appoint someone ASAP.
The Dish 