On the importance of governorships
[See ADDENDUM below.]
Think about this for a moment:
With John McCain’s death, the governor of Arizona gets to appoint his successor to the US Senate. The timing of McCain’s death is such that this person will get to serve in the Senate until after the 2020 election.
Right now the composition of the Senate is very close; at the moment it’s 50 Republicans, 47 Democrats and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats, and one vacancy (McCain’s seat). VP Pence can break ties, but this is way too close for comfort.
What if the governor of Arizona happened to be a Democrat? You better believe a Democrat would be appointed, and the balance would become exactly even, with Pence needing to be called in constantly. Any defections from the GOP, even of one senator, would gum up the works.
That would mean that all of Trump’s federal judicial appointments would be in jeopardy.
That’s a governor’s potential power on the federal level.
ADDENDUM:
It turns out that in Arizona, the governor must appoint a successor of the same party as the deceased. That doesn’t mean, of course, that a governor can’t appoint a much more moderate member of that party—for example, in this case, there are plenty of Republicans out to thwart Trump’s agenda, and if the governor of Arizona wanted to do so, he could appoint one of them.
But Arizona is somewhat unusual. Most states have no such restrictions on the party of the appointee. See this for a more detailed explanation.
Ducey may be under a lot of pressure to appoint Cindy McCain and I hope he resists it. He is also up for re-election in November.
I just read (Wikipedia) that Arizona State law requires that the Governor appoints a senatorial successor from the same party as that of the deceased senator.
I assume that this is not the case in all states.
requires that the Governor appoints a senatorial successor from the same party as that of the deceased senator.
A Democratic governor would find the local equivalent of Lisa Murkowski or Rod Rosenstein.
It seems that the custom, that the immediate and normal thought and choice to replace a member of Congress is quite often their husband or wife. Why is that?
Despite some examples to the contrary, these seats in Congress are not hereditary.
Why should someone not elected by anybody, who may or may not have any background or experience that would make them a good legislator, be the first person that everyone thinks of as being the person that should take the place of that deceased member of Congress, who they just happen to be married to?
Are we counting possible pillow talk as experience? If their partner just listens to them make occasional remarks about the issues they are dealing with, and that partner goes to various events with the late legislator, is that experience? Can the governor who appoints them count on them having the same viewpoint as the deceased Senator and vote the same way?
This makes absolutely no sense.
Glenn Reynolds’ analysis of coups that I put a link up to on your earlier Trump Talk thread, also pointed to the importance of governors as independent power centers, each usually with some type of armed forces at their command, that would be key players in the case of any attempted coup.
Despite the almost overwhelming power of the Federal government, that has skewed Federalism heavily in the national government’s favor, the governors of the states still do have some power. Power that could become very crucial–even decisive–during an attempted coup.
Does anyone else remember how MA changed its law in 2004 to prevent Romney from potentially appointing a replacement for Kerry, and then changed it again at Ted Kennedy’s death?
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/us/politics/21kennedy.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/24/kennedy.replacement/index.html
“That’s a governor’s potential power on the federal level.”
It is perhaps useful to remember that all senators used to be elected by state legislators, for the express purpose of safe-guarding the autonomy of state governments at the federal level. If I have the story correct, the constitution was amended because legislators in Missouri and possibly elsewhere were accepting cash payouts from senatorial candidates. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.
As an AZ resident and registered indie, I will vote for Ducey unless he appoints Cyndie McCain.
In that case, I will look elsewhere.
“A Democratic governor would find the local equivalent of Lisa Murkowski or Rod Rosenstein.”
or John McCain…
McCain’s scorecard was a great deal closer to the Republican median than Lisa Murkowski’s has ever been. He just made an irritant of himself on select occasions It is true he tried to spread the Steele dossier around. The mudwrestling between McCain and Trump was unedifying.
It is perhaps useful to remember that all senators used to be elected by state legislators, for the express purpose of safe-guarding the autonomy of state governments at the federal level. I
That’s nice. I’ll wager you reinstate it, the prototype of a U.S. Senator will be Alphonse d’Amato.
Mostly off topic, but I remember quite a few years ago when Mondale became VP, the governor of MN resigned and the Lt. Governor (now governor) appointed him to the senate. That didn’t go over at all well and he was out in the next election and that was also the end of his political career.
The law is a loose guide for one of the parties- if it were a Democrat as governor in Arizona, you can bet there would be newly declared “Republican” getting appointed.
Ducey is in the establishment camp, but I doubt he’ll appoint Cincy McCain. That’s just too incendiary. I think he’ll wait until after his re-election race (and the race for Flake’s seat) when he’ll have a better lay of the political land. He will also have more “flexibility” after that and no fear of reprisals.
I expect he will appoint a solid establishment type with very little public record. A company man.