Last week I noted a suggestion in the comments to the effect that the Connecticut Democrats should use their veto proof majority to change the method of filling vacancies in the United States Senate. I got a comment on that post from Representative Tim O’Brien, who has introduced a bill to provide for special elections in case of such a vacancy. I also passed on the suggestion in an email to Representatives Moukawsher, Wright and Ritter, and Senator Maynard.
I got responses from everyone but Representative Wright. All three expressed some level of support for the concept, though they appeared to vary widely on the enthusiasm scale.
Andy Maynard felt it would go nowhere fast, and that a veto override would be negatively perceived by the public, which is more interested in seeing substantive progress on energy, health and property taxes. Ed Moukawsher said he would look into it, saw merit in it, but doesn’t see the Lieberman resignation as a real possibility. I think he had the mistaken impression that Representative O’Brien’s proposal would vest the power of appointment in the legislature. It doesn’t. Betsy Ritter was generally supportive.
There’s a few points that should be made here. First, I think the legislature is capable of dealing with an issue like this and other, substantive stuff. I really don’t think it’s that controversial. Andy felt it would be poorly received by everyone but Lieberman haters. I don’t think so. It takes the choice from the governor, and gives it to the people, to whom it belongs. Nor should a veto override be considered some sort of earth shaking event. Governors veto, and legislatures can override. In fact, this legislature should override. Their failure to wield their majority has made them look, sometimes, almost as weak as their Congressional counterparts. The question I would have is why any Democrat would vote against this.
As to Lieberman’s retiring, I don’t think it’s out of the question. The New York Times recently noted that “he may be ready to retire and move to the revenue-enhancement side of the post-Senate career”. The Times was talking about 2012, but a lot could happen between now and then, particularly if the Democrats manage to blow the presidential election, and don’t put it past them. Holy Joe might decide to take a Cabinet post and presto, we end up with a Republican senator.
Lieberman aside, it makes sense to take the appointment power out of the hands of this governor in particular, and any governor in general. Given the power of incumbency, an appointment for a short term gives the appointee a significant advantage. Democrats have an advantage on a level playing field. We don’t need the boost as much as Republicans. Given the party’s failure to elect a governor since 1984, it makes sense to take the appointment power out of the hands of a governor whose likely to be Republican. It needed hardly be added that every additional Republican Senator makes it that much harder to get real, substantive change in this country.
In any event, I’m grateful to the three legislators for getting back to me.
Post a Comment