Tag Archives: stevens

U.S. Senate Vacancies

Posted on by

Vacant U.S. Senate seats are in the news lately. Obama, Biden, and Clinton are all leaving office; Illinois legislators are talking about passing a law to prevent Gov. Blagojevich from appointing Obama’s replacement; and if Ted Stevens had been re-elected, he might have been expelled, leaving a vacancy to be filled.

It all got me wondering why there’s no uniform method for filling a vacancy. Each state has its own law for replacing a senator; most states require the governor to appoint a replacement, but some states limit that power, requiring the replacement to be from the same party as the vacater and/or requiring the governor to choose from a short list. And some states don’t let the governor make the appointment at all, requiring a special election instead. This leads to lots of confusion; for example, many people thought that Sarah Palin could have appointed herself to replace Ted Stevens if he was expelled, but it turns out that Alaska requires a special election to fill a vacant seat.

So where did this craziness come from, especially given that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that states aren’t allowed to set term limits for their U.S. senators?

Well, I did some googling and it turns out that it comes from the Seventeenth Amendment. This is commonly known as the amendment that required U.S. senators to be elected by the people instead of being chosen by state legislatures. But the amendment’s second paragraph states:

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.

So, although the people must eventually vote in special elections to fill Senate vacancies, state legislatures can empower the governor to fill those vacancies temporarily. Hence, state-by-state differences in how the process unfolds.

This has been another episode of “Answers to Questions You Didn’t Ask.”

(P.S. Here are all the state statutes and relevant federal statutes and constitutional clauses. Found here.)

Brimley/Stritch

Posted on by

From an article about the upcoming “Sex and the City” movie:

While the film revolves around Carrie and Big’s wedding, Mr. King was insistent that no mother or father of the bride be shown. “My idea always was that these women were purely creations of New York,” he said. “The prototype of the series is that these are four grown-ups who make a family of one another.”

Also driving Mr. King’s decision was his fear of falling into cliché. “Who was going to play Carrie’s mother? Connie Stevens? It’s such a traditional sitcom limb. It’s the Thanksgiving episode, and there are Wilford Brimley and Elaine Stritch. I never wanted to do anything like that.”

I would pay to see Wilford Brimley and Elaine Stritch as anyone’s parents in a sitcom episode.

Tonight’s Debate

Posted on by

I watched the debate tonight. And I can’t believe I’m saying this, but: I think Clinton definitely had the better evening. Obama seemed off his game. The questions were appalling — Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous both seemed to be channeling Tim Russert, and they brought up every possible scandal that has been raised against Obama. Including the flag pin thing! Are you kidding me?

Nothing about Mark Penn or his Colombia trade deal. But questions about Wright, and some Weatherman guy.

But Obama didn’t respond well to the questions at all. He sounded halting and hesitant and defensive when he spoke.

Clinton, meanwhile, seemed polished and prepared and seemed to know her stuff. If this were the only debate I’d seen, and I were voting in the Pennsylvania primary, I might vote for her.

Not that she has a chance of getting the nomination anymore, but she might very well be a better candidate against McCain than Obama would be. She’d certainly be better than either John Kerry or Al Gore at going on the offensive and standing up for herself.

Obama sometimes seems to be morphing into Adlai Stevenson before our eyes. We might get killed again this fall with him as the nominee.

Obama works under the assumption that people are smart. Case in point: his wonderful speech on race last month.

Clinton, on the other hand, works under the assumption that people are dumb and need things explained to them in simple terms.

Unfortunately, I think most people are dumb.

I don’t necessarily mean that as a knock against Clinton. It’s just the way things seem to be.