With news today of Sen. Ken Salazar likely being appointed as Secretary of Interior, the prospect of another open Senate seat was cause for another round of speculation: who will the Governor appoint?
Personally, I've been hearing so much of this by now that I've become sick and tired of it. Initially, the appointment bonanza fascinated me too. Yeah, I'm guilty of it. I confess.
But no more. Follow me below the fold for why temporary appointments are the only way to go.
Before I take a closer look at the four states with Senate seats needing to be filled (Delaware, Illinois, New York & Colorado) let's take a look at the current composition of the U.S. Senate. Of those, currently serving in the Senate six got there by being appointed: Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski (AK), Daniel Akaka (HI), Roger Wicker (MS), Robert Menendez (NJ), and John Barrasso (WY). Those appointments (and many others prior to that) have been great or catastrophic, mediocre or simply nepotistic and scandalous. And yet, some of the appointed Senators would have made it to the Senate all by themselves in a regular or special election. After all, the six I mention here have all eventually been reelected (though would they have won a primary in a special election?).
The current situation is this: we have at least three (probably four) Democratic Senators needing to be replaced. Race and gender play into this as only one of the four is a white male making the replacement choices the Governors face more complicated than usual. Let's take a look state by state.
Delaware: At first I wasn't really enthused of Gov. Minner's choice of Biden confidante Ted Kaufman to replace the Vice President-elect until a special election in 2010. While the choice of this individual may be questionable, Minner's decision to opt for a temporary replacement was the right one. Why should the two candidates most talked about, AG Beau Biden and Lt. Gov. John Carney, have gotten a Senate seat to which they were likely to get reelected for decades? Beau Biden didn't deserve to just get handed his father's Senate seat, no matter his qualifications. And the same goes for Carney. He lost the Democratic primary for Governor this year and now his supporters (and Carney himself apparently) believed he should get the Senate seat as a consolation prize? Biden and Carney should duke it out in a primary in 2010. Let the voters decide who really "deserves" the seat.
Illinois: Gee, there's not much to say here right? I believe the person who should have been appointed here is outgoing Senate President Emil Jones. Put a nice end to his career. If Governors actually do get to appont a successor they should go for an elder statesman/woman. The most likeliest route in Illinois now is that the Legislature will change the law and call for a special election. That's of course always the preferrable route but a costly one for sure.
Colorado: This is a fresh one but already the Salazar family is reportedly making clear that they want Ken's brother and Congressman John Salazar to fill the seat. Naturally, this would again look like nepotism and not be the best choice. There are quite a few qualified candidates in Colorado and I'd really like to see a couple of them fight it out in a primary. If John Salazar were to run and win the primary so be it. That's the voters choice. The Governor should not be in a position to preempt it.
New York: I like Caroline Kennedy. I do believe she'd be a good Senator. Yet, I do not want Governor Paterson to appoint her. First of all, I think there are other good, qualified and interesting candidates out there. Second, some ill feelings from the Democratic primary for President are likely to resurface and I'm not looking forward to that at all. If Caroline Kennedy wants to become Senator she should run for it in 2010 and, depending on the primary field, I may very well support her. In the meantime Paterson would be far better off stearing clear of past Clinton Obama battles and of present and future down state-up state and gender and race fault lines.
Looking at these four states it's quite clear that several potential appointments would (or could have) piss off a lot of people and constituencies. It would give people (like Caroline Kennedy) a seat they might never have run for otherwise. Simply put the situation in many states of Governors appointing a replacement to the Senate is undemocratic and where it is not done away with by way of an immediate special election (as seems likely in Illinois) a temporary appointment who will not run for reelection is simply the best way to go.