No change needed in filling Senate vacancies
John Blust introduces a state House bill to change how North Carolina would fill vacancies in its U.S. Senate seats.
Here's how it works now:
Suppose one of our senators resigns today. The governor appoints a replacement to serve until an election is held to fill the vacancy. That election will occur at the time of the next election for members of the General Assembly -- November 2010. The person elected completes the senator's term.
Under Blust's bill, the governor would name a temporary replacement, but a special election would be held within 90 days of the vacancy. There would be no primary election. Rather, each political party would nominate a candidate. The winner of the election would complete the senator's term.
This is meant, of course, to avoid the Illinois scenario. Sure enough, we don't want our governor ever putting Senate seats up for bid. But Blago got caught by the feds, kicked out of office by the state legislature and wasn't even paid by the man he appointed.
What I don't like about Blust's proposal is the possibility that a special statewide election could be held in February, or July, or December, or any time during the year. Voter turnout could be small. The candidates could be a couple of hacks who couldn't punch their way out of a paper bag, let alone a primary, but were simply put on the ballot by party insiders.
It would be better to wait to have a real election on a real election day. At most you'd have to live with the governor's appointee for two years. I'd trust any North Carolina governor to do better than Rod Blagojevitch.
Comments (3)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
John Blust introduces a state House bill to change how North Carolina would fill vacancies in its U.S. Senate seats.*Doug
No doubt Republican Blust has never heard how U.S. Senators were selected before 1913. One can only assume that he has no understanding of the Republican form of constitutional government and elections along with the division of powers among the People House [ Congress] { direct election by the voters} and the Senate of the United States { appointed by the State Legistures} the opposite of mass mob democracy, minority rules no matter what the rights of individals are!
Posted on March 6, 2009 1:09 PM
I'm sure he does understand that very well. It's simply not germane to the current discussion.
Posted on March 6, 2009 1:17 PM
minority rules no matter what the rights of individals are!* Correction
Should be majority rules not minority........example.... Suppose you belong to a Africa tribe in the Bush or the Jungles and the Chief has decided to hold a hearing of the tribe about starting a war with another tribe who seeks their hunting and water rights and property by agressive force. A vote is held by the tribe and 99.9 % of the tribe agree with the Chief that they must fight the another Tribe. However, the .01 % of the Ney vote is by a member who believes that maybe the Chiefs of both Tribes can sit down and work out the differences in a peaceful mode without War. Since the minority member idea is rejected by the majority of the Tribe, he suddenly becomes the subject of the meal menu for the Tribe large boiling pot......Don't you just love Democracy in action?
Posted on March 6, 2009 1:24 PM