I’ve been in favor of the idea, but the Daily News says it’s not gonna happen:
Gov. David Paterson today flat-out rejected the idea of appointing a placeholder to Hillary Clinton’s US Senate seat, saying he’s worried it would cost New York clout in the upper house. …
“I’m actually opposed to that,” he told reporters in Albany this morning. “It would cause New York to lose senioirity, and in the United States Senate the most effective senators are the ones that have seniority. So I’m hoping that the person I select wins a primary.”
Because Clinton won’t resign until she is confirmed as SoS, Paterson isn’t talking about seniority in the 111th Congress – his appointee will be the most junior member of the Senate (possibly depending on what happens in Illinois and maybe Minnesota).
Rather, seniority will only matter if the appointed senator wins a primary and general in 2010. Around ten or so new senators take office every two years on average, so our Mystery Senator would have the tremendous privilege of being, oh, about 88th or 89th in the pecking order.
I don’t purport to understand every nuance of the Senate’s internal dealings – it’s a very weird body. So maybe ten spots up the totem poll really would make a difference. But this seems like a pretty feeble justifcation for me, because I think there’s a simple solution that balances the seniority issue with, you know, the democracy issue: change the law to call for a special election. Of course, there aren’t too many sitting governors who would give up their own power like that, so I’m sure we won’t see Paterson exercise that option either.
What is wrong with letting the many talented and qualified Democrats of NY duke it out in a primary?
The “loss of seniority” would be minimal, as you note.
Even if the New York legislature moved now (and I’m not 100% sure on this, but if the appointment power of the governor is based on the state’s constitution [which is my understanding] wouldn’t there have to be some sort of state-wide referendum on it anyways?]) to put together a special election would, in order to be reasonable, take place several months from now (and with the sorry state the legislature is in, it’s not even clear that it would get through both the Assembly and the Senate). Considering that it might be a while before getting senators from Illinois and Minnesota, is it really a good idea to leave a Democratic vacancy during the most important time in attempting to get anything passed by congress?
then why even bother having an election every 6 years? We don’t want to lose seniority by electing a new guy to replace the old one!
I find it hard to believe that a mere 2 years will affect any kind of seniority and the perks that come along with it. It’s just an excuse for Paterson to get a valuable chit from a future Senator, who will inevitably owe Paterson for his or her career. Everyone is complaining about Blago’s appointment of Burris, who will get primaried out in 2010 anyway, when the real problem is Paterson subverting the entire democratic process.
New York has 29 Representatives and I think Patterson should appoint one of them to the Senate. I have seen netroots support for Brian Higgins, Nydia Velazquez, Jerold Nadler, and Kirsten Gillibrand. I would also like to suggest Maurice Hinchey and Jose Serrano for considation to the Senate seat. Take for granted that whoever is nominated will get reelected in 2010, because they are a Democrat running in New York. Don’t worry if they aren’t yet known statewide, or can’t raise millions of dollars. Instead focus on how effective they have been as a congressman.
He was the only genuine caretaker, so might as well pretend that he wasn’t going to appoint anyone caretaker.
This will get even messier than it already has been! Now that Paterson is determined to be king/queenmaker, all the folks already begging for the job will only be fiercer in competing for it. So much needless drama will occur when Paterson could have spared us by appointing a caretaker for the next 2 years so all the candidates can fairly compete in the 2010 primary. Sigh…
Any ideas how likely it is Patterson snubs CK yet she runs anyway? I’m thinking not very though stranger things have happened.
Besides the added expense, there is one very compelling reason not have a special election: it gives the Republicans a chance to take the seat. And don’t think Republicans couldn’t win in such a deep blue state because they could.
this caretaker crap is playing with fire. the assumption by many on this blog that we own these states and a democrat will win after an expensive and bloody primary no matter what. d’amato was the senator in new york not so long ago and fitzgerald was the republican who knocked out carol mosely braun in IL just 10 years ago.
the right of governors to appoint has been around since 1913 and i don’t think it has resulted in worse candidates or worse representation than the traditional way. walter mondale, sam ervin, lincoln chafee, ted stevens (hateful in many ways but certainly effective) were all appointed.
and menendez was the right guy for the nj seat and his appointment probably deprived the GOP of a decent shot at it.
i don’t think there’s any way ms. kennedy runs if she’s not appointed. after staying out of the limelight her entire life and taking a few ginger steps toward it this year, i can’t imagine her jumping into a brutal new york primary against an appointed democrat.
“Denver Public Schools superintendent Michael Bennet is expected to be named Saturday as the future U.S. Senate replacement for Interior Secretary nominee Ken Salazar, according to two Democratic sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity.”
http://www.rockymountainnews.c…