While Obama's remarkably fast rise through the political ranks validated the power of democracy and grassroots organization, the recent spate of Senate appointments by state governors reveals a fundamental problem that still exists in our political process. The uproar over Blagojevich's attempt to sell the President's vacated Senate seat is surely warranted, but is it that dissimilar from the other backroom deals and shady negotiations that have filled the seats left vacant by those who joined Obama's team?
Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner appointed Biden's Chief of Staff, Ted Kaufman, as his replacement. Kaufman immediately vowed that he would not seek re-election in the 2010 race, and thus opened the door for a probable run by Biden's son, the current Attorney General of Delaware, Beau Biden. While Kaufman will presumably provide a rather seamless transition both in terms of policy and operations between him and his former boss, the appointment reeks of a politically nepotistic calculation.
Then we had the spectacularly entertaining (and brief) "run" by Caroline Kennedy. After announcing her interest in the position, she was considered the all but inevitable pick, despite her lack of, um, experience, known positions on the issues and the ability to give a clear answer to a reporter. After weeks of a soap-opera-like performance by New York Governor David Paterson, he finally settled on Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand after Kennedy spontaneously withdrew her name from consideration at the last minute for undisclosed "personal reasons."
The pick of the first-term "Blue Dog Democrat" was a pretty transparent move by Paterson to appeal to upstate, conservative-leaning voters in time for the gubernatorial race in 2010. Then just this past week Senator Judd Gregg, a moderate Republican from New Hampshire, was tapped as Commerce Secretary. Many saw this move by Obama as evidence of his shrewd political mind. With Judd gone (and Franken most likely in), Democrats would now have the 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Partisan Dems were ecstatic at this prospect, Republicans terrified. But not so fast. Gregg and the GOP leadership responded by saying that Gregg would only accept the position if he was guaranteed that his state's Democratic governor appointed a fellow Republican to replace him. Governor John Lynch faithfully complied and appointed Republican Bonnie Newman only hours after Obama nominated Gregg to the Commerce post. Why Gregg's quid pro quo is wholly different from Blago's is beyond me.
Of course, all of politics is dictated in part by patronage and self-interest. Yet, these cases reveal that the process of filling a vacant Senate seat needs dramatic reform. In light of this need for change, it is helpful to understand the origins of this provision. The power given to governors to appoint a senator is found in the U.S. Constitution, in the 17th Amendment. The Amendment was ratified in 1913 and established the direct election of Senators and provided the power for a governor, if so authorized by the respective state's legislature, to appoint a Senator in the event of a vacancy. Nearly 100 years later, the process once again needs to be amended.
Democratic Senator Russ Feingold has introduced a Constitutional Amendment to end Senate appointments by governors. According to Feingold, "In 1913, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid-term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people." While it is easy to be complacent about an anachronistic process when your own party is benefiting (as the Democrats are now), all senators should follow Feingold's lead and embrace this change as a necessary corrective to an imperfect system.
