Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Filling Senate Vacancies

I'm interrupting this string of blog posts about my vacation to comment on a post by Maryland House of Delegates member Saqib Ali on his blog.

Saqib Ali, if you don't know, once commented on my blog about me listing him as one of the 10 Democrats in the state that needs to be kicked out of office. I do not have any disdain for Delegate Ali, I just do not agree with his politics. Nor do I condone his violation of Wikipedia policy of updating articles about yourself, which he has done regularly. It is a well-written biography and advertisement, but that's not why I'm talking today.

Delegate Ali recently wrote House Bill #369: Special Elections for US Senate Vacancies Act. As the law currently reads, when a Senator leaves office either to appointment to a another office or by some other situation, the Governor of the state appoints his or her replacement until the next election cycle. Clearly, the Governor is going to appoint someone that he or she wants in office and politics being politics, you know there is some kind of kick-back, back-door shenanigans going on. We already saw this in Illinois when Governor Rod Blagojevich offered Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder. The seat was eventually given to totally incompetent former Illinois State's Attorney General Roland Burris.

Delegate Ali's new law would mandate a special election called by the Governor of Maryland should a U.S. Senator from Maryland vacate his or her seat. I totally agree with this part of the bill. I do not agree with interim appointments as they, the appointee, usually end up getting elected in the next election cycle anyway without having to properly go through normal election channels to gain recognition, raise election capital, and gain the acceptance and trust of the people. Instead, the Governor picks the candidate of his or her liking, someone who will agree with him and push his agenda on a national level, then the candidate gains favor with the Congress and can easily attract funds for reelection. The intention of this bill is right-on. Congratulations, Delegate Ali, for submitting this part of the bill.

Unfortunately, Delegate Ali also included a provision that would not allow the bill to go into effect until January 2015, many years (hopefully) after we kick O'Malley out of office. The reason Delegate Ali gives for the inclusion of this provision is "so as not to seem to impugn the the integrity of our current Governor."

As if the Governor had any integrity. This totally leaves O'Malley a blank check to appoint a new Senator of his liking should Ben Cardin or Babs Mikulski suddenly decide to leave office mid-election cycle (if we could only be so lucky). Why is the thought of impugning the integrity of Governor being placed above the will of the people? The real intention of this provision is to protect the rapport of the Democratic legislators and their Governor when they vote to approve this bill. Imagine the pissing match O'Malley would have with the Democrats in the General Assembly that voted for this bill without the provision. I think it would make for great headlines!

What is more important? The reputation and rapport of the current gang of motley politicians, or the allowing the people of Maryland to choose which Senator will represent them in the United States Senate?

Unfortunately for Maryland, Delegate Ali is making that decision for us.

2 comments:

Saqib Ali said...

Eludius, my old friend :)

Guess what? I agree with the substance of your post. It would be optimal if we could end Gubernatorial Appointments for US Senate Vacancies immediately. I would have much preferred that option. However, I was informed that proposal would likely be DOA because it would be seen by legislative leaders as an attack on Gov O'Malley.

This was a tough bill. I knew the odds were stacked against it to start with. My goal was to pass an important reform. So I reluctantly watered down my own bill to pre-empt that criticism and increase its chance of passage. Unfortunately it failed anyway because legislative leaders STILL viewed it as an attack on the Governor's office. In the end the calculus I made was that it was better to take half-a-loaf than to get no loaf at all. And those are exactly the kind of painful compromises we have to make in Annapolis all the time if we want our bills to pass.

In this case I was willing to accept half-a-loaf and I still came away with nothing! But I'm hopeful that next year, I may have more success.

- Saqib

Eludius said...

Delegate Ali - thank you for responding. I guess I'm too much of an optimist\purist. I'd make a horrible politician. But I think I make a decent critic. :-)

Good luck with the bill in the next session.

Who links to my website?
 
Add to Technorati Favorites Add to Technorati Favorites Add to Technorati Favorites