How is the situation with S.D. Sen. Johnson Constitutional?

Question

How is it Constitutional for the Governer of S.D. to appoint someone into the Senate who has no similarity and belongs to the opposite party as the person having to resign due to illness? If Sen. Johnson has to resign shouldn't there be a special election or have Sen. Johnson himself chose his replacement, so that it can be assured that the person taking his place will govern the way Sen. Johson would? Otherwise the person representing a district will have completely different political views and affiliations than that of who they voted for.

I guess people aren't understanding the question. The question isn't about whether or not it is allowed in the current Constitution the question is whether it should be constitutional. Should a Governer be allowed to appoint someone to a Senate seat who doesn't represent the views of the voters?

Answer 1

I guess I agree. It should be the same party, just as it would be with the Governor or the President.

Answer 2

If you look back through history, the Senate was a body created to bolster the states' rights and keep them from being plowed under by the masses as a whole.

Rhode Island has equal say as California, which is an example of preserving the power of states vs. the population as a whole.

As far as Consitutionality, Senators were originally appointed by the states, in a manner depending on what the states put into place.

Direct election of senators by the voters didn't come about for a long, long time (17th Amendment, around 1912 or 1914, or something like that).

Not only is this method Consitiutional, it's more in line with how things were set up by the Consitution than the direct elections.

I'm not sure how the will of the voter is thwarted when you consider that the governor and the state legislators are all also elected officials.

In any case, a Senator can only be replaced if he resigns, is convicted of crimes or dies. If he's incapacitated, they can't just go and remove him.

In the interest of disclosure, I'll say that my answer is not weighted or tainted by partisan considerations. If the Senator dies, a Republican is appointed and Cheney's deciding tie-breaker swings things away from the Dems and back to Republican control, I'll probably cry myself to sleep for weeks, straight.

Answer 3

You're obviously a Democrat. If the Senator who had a stroke was a Republican and the Governor was a Democrat, do you think that any Dem would ever appoint a Republican?

I think NOT.

See Amendment XVII:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

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.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.


[...]

[I]t allows the governor or executive authority of each state, if authorized by that state's legislature, to appoint a senator in the event of an opening, until an election occurs.

The Amendment has many critics. See articles below.

__________
original question: "How is the situation with S.D. Sen. Johnson Constitutional?"

Additional details: "The question isn't about whether or not it is allowed in the current Constitution the question is whether it should be constitutional."

See "National Review" article on whether it "should be" constitutional.

Think first. Type second.

Answer 4

It's right there, in the US Constitution Art I, Sec 3 and the 2nd paragraph of the 17th Amendment. The State Governor fills Senate vacancies until the a special election can be held. In practice, however, when the Governor makes the interim appointment, the appointee usually keeps the seat until the end of the term. State law can require a special election, but South Dakota's apparently does not.

Answer 5

The governors appointment would be "temporary" until a special election could be held. The state law does not give a time limit for temporary though.

Answer 6

According to the state constitution, this is the process. You claim that they would have different political views than the person they voted for, but in fact, they also voted for the Governor. But all rationale aside, it is found within the constitution.

Answer 7

I am not familiar with SD's state constitution, but here in the blue-as-blue-can-be state of New Jersey, we take pride in appointing the most corrupt rascals we can find to the U.S. senate whenever the opportunity presents itself. So, I believe appointment of Senate replacements by the state's governor is a pretty widely accepted method.

Answer 8

Because if the senator can not perform his duties than the governor of that state would choose someone to take his /her place. In this case the Governor is a Republican.

Answer 9

So if 20 yrs from now this happens to a republican and a democratic governor decides who goes into office, would it be fair then? Dems cry foul when things don't go their way. But they sure turn their head if it's to their advantage.

Answer 10

It's a state's rights issue. The federal government cannot dictate how the state handles such situations.