Bill changing Senate vacancy rules introduced

Is it possible (2.00 / 2)

for Democrats to act more petty?  Is there any doubt that it will be repealed as soon as a Democrat holds the Governor's office again?

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 21:39:56 PM UTC

not likely (4.00 / 1)

This is exactly the kind of response to this sort of thing that I predicted in my back and forth with Nick, but I never would have expected it to come from you, Thurman.

I could be as wrong in assuming that the law won't be changed if a Democrat is elected Governor in 2013 or beyond as I was in assuming that the legislature would not take any action of this kind, but it appears as if the approach that Asm. McKeon is taking would not require a repeal in the future as it does not strip the power of the Governor's office to fill the vacancy in question as much as it just limits it somewhat.

Also, I think that it is unlikely that a future sitting Democratic Governor would want to put herself/himself in the crossfire that would come from repealing this legislation, if passed, solely to reap some additional power for herself/himself.  The risk/reward ratio would not be good enough.

If anything, I could see this being repealed/reversed much further down the road at the end of a sitting Governor's second term following a gubernatorial election won by somone from the same party.

I agree that this legislation is not entirely kosher from a purely good government perspective, but in the spectrum of clean/dirty politics, especially with regards to NJ politics, I think that it is pretty benign.

I also think that one could argue that in a state whose politics are as dirty as NJ's, any effort, even one as somewhat cravenly and transparently political as this, that reduces the power of the strongest Governor's office in the country is probably a good thing.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 22:24:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Have you paid attention to Massachusetts? n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 23:06:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Did MA change the law back? (0.00 / 0)

I know that they changed the law so that Deval Patrick could appoint a replacement for Ted Kennedy.  I had not read that the law had been changed back.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 15:45:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That (0.00 / 0)

is exactly what I mean.  

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 00:43:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Difference between NJ and MA (0.00 / 0)

MA changed the law in 2004 to prevent the Republican Governor from being able to appoint a Republican to replace John Kerry if he won the Presidential election.  This law was repealed so that a replacement for Ted Kennedy could be appointed quickly.  To the best of my knowledge, there has been little to no criticism of this change.

The law being proposed doesn't strip a Governor of his power to appoint, but limits his choices of appointees.  This is not a dramatic change and should not require a repeal the next time that a Democratic Governor is elected.  The worst part about this law is its timing.  Otherwise, it is pretty benign.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 01:10:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reply (0.00 / 0)

To the best of my knowledge, there has been little to no criticism of this change.

You're kidding, right?  

Yeah, it limits the Governor's ability to pick which Democrat will stand for the next election.  Senator Jerramiah Healy sound good to anyone?  

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 18:43:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nick was right and I was wrong... (0.00 / 0)

...and I am very happy to be wrong.  My initial assumption that the Democrats would not pursue a legislative remedy to the status quo lacked a certain degree of imagination and vision, but we all know what happens when we assume, especially when it comes to NJ politics.  While I agree with Jeff that this should have been done a long time ago, it is understandable why it wasn't.

The ideal time to have tried to pass this legislation would have been during lame duck 2005, coming right on the heels of Corzine winning the gubernatorial election, but any changes to the law would have required Corzine's blessing.

Any attempts afterwards would have sent negative messages to the electorate about both Corzine and Lautenberg and could have negatively impacted both of their re-election campaigns.

The approach that Assemblyman McKeon appears to be taking seems to be the most sensible from a NJ power politics perspective in that it will place some limitations on a Governor's ability to fill a vacancy without stripping the office of the power to fill it completely, while ensuring that if nothing else, a replacement is from the same political party as the Sentor who vacated it.

Anybody who thinks that this bill or any discussion of the precarious nature of Senator Lautenberg's seat during the next four years that Chris Christie will be Governor is an affront to Senator Lautenberg is simply not being realistic and/or has not heard the man speak over the last year-plus.

I don't think that there is a person on the Senator's staff who does not think that the future of the seat and being able to ensure that it remains Democratic if it became vacant are fair topics for discussion and justification for the pursuit of a legislative remedy to the status quo.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 21:59:18 PM UTC

I'm afraid I agree with Thurman... (0.00 / 0)

It's like a Republican Legislature passing a law that says future democrats can pass laws. Where does it end?

I mean in theory, you could have legislatures passing rules that expire every 4 years... and then reinact or not depending on who wins the election...

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 23:57:56 PM UTC

excuse me... (0.00 / 0)

'can't'

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 23:59:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Think this should be a national law (0.00 / 0)

I think too much power is given to governors in the ability to appoint Senators.  I think it should be a placeholder in the same party as the Senator no longer serving who will serve until a special election.  

---

by: amybrown @ Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 20:43:07 PM UTC

It's a Constitutional amendment (0.00 / 0)

The 17th:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such 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 the person the Governor appoints only serves until the next election - which is every November here in Jersey.  That's why Menendez was seated in January and had to immediately run for re-election.

It's a lot of to-do over a few months in office.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 01:40:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Incumbency Counts For A Lot.... (0.00 / 0)

...and, frankly, I don't want to see a Bush Republican appointing anyone the US Senate, especially at a time where Democrats are at 60 votes.

Christie didn't win so much as Corzine lost.....NJ people don't want Bush policies to return.   Christie will be a disaster, unless he is checked in every way possible.

We elected a majority Democratic legislature...and it's their job to actually BE partisan within the limits of the law/constitution.  

There is ZERO doubt in my mind that, if NJ were a majority Republican state, and that if the shoe was on the other foot...that the Republicans would use the lame duck session to protect their own partisan interests.   That's how democracy works.

My concern is that the machine Dems will take it easy on Christie in order to curry his favor...so he will let them carry on with their own self serving machinations.    

Folks like Norcross and Christie can "work" together to keep each other wealthy and powerful and the interests of the general public be damned.  

If we don't get a lame duck session that uses all of its powers to hamstring Christie and promotes progressive policies in the form of legislation; then that tells us (in my case...CONFIRMS) that the Dems under Sweeney/Norcross are a collusional corrupt bunch.

I believe there is a chance that 21 Dems will stand up on their hind legs and do some right things...but only if they are pressed to by grass roots activists/ordinary citizens.

In any event, let's hope and pray that both Menendez and Lautenberg complete their terms in good health!

PS/BTW  Thurman, imho the answer is not to become a Republican (though in Hudson County...I can certainly understand why you did!) but rather for progressives and ordinary rank and file HUMAN BEINGS to take over the ossified de facto corrupt party establishment from the ground up.    

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 06:21:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry (0.00 / 0)

I thought we were actually trying to change the way politics works.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 00:44:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is your issue with the change or the timing of it? (0.00 / 0)

If this law was proposed four years ago, would you have felt that it was still bad?

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 00:53:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

It is completely useless.  

When was the last time a US Senator in NJ was seated by special election (or any election not held during November)? It isn't about saving money, it's about bald partisan politics.  When has a NJ Governor abused his power to appoint a US Senator?

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 18:42:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Corzine won't sign it (0.00 / 0)

He's too classy and wants to go out without accusations of being too political.  

It seems he has a good working and personal relationship with Christie he won't want to jeopardize.  And he doesn't want to be attacked by the media for being a political puppet of machine politicians.

This legislation could have and should have been passed a long time ago.  The fact that Dems waited until now will only reinforce the perception, especially among independent voters, that Democrats are corrupt and self-serving.  

http://christiegonewild.blogsp...

---

by: ken bank @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 00:45:44 AM UTC

I disagree (0.00 / 0)

Corzine is not that classy and this is actually less the work of machine politicians (John McKeon is about as independent as an Essex County politician can be) as it is people in the legislature who are truly concerned about the future of Frank Lautenberg's seat.

Machine politicians rarely concern themselves with federal government, because there is far less influence that they can peddle and power to be brokered.

If anything, machine politicians are going to be more interested in having a cordial relationship with Chris Christie than keeping Frank Lautenberg's seat Democratic and may be the obstacle that prevents this legislation from getting passed.

My guess is that if John McKeon is bringing this up in the Assembly, Dick Codey will probably be bringing it up in the Senate, unless he gets blocked by Sweeney and his SJ Senators or if Adubato and Norcross can cobble together enough machine Assemblypersons to block the bill in the Assembly.

Even more than marriage equality, this bill could be the canary in the coal mine to see the degree to which the machines that will be running the legislature will be in Christie's back pocket.

However, if this bill gets through both the Assembly and the Senate, there is no doubt in my mind that Corzine will sign it.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 16:15:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]