Succession

Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming, one of the upper house's more obscure Republicans, died last night. I agree with Robert Farley that while it would have been nice to see him replaced by a Democrat, Wyoming's rule for handling this situation seems eminently more sensible than the standard one: "Under Wyoming’s election laws, the state Republican Party will nominate three people to be his successor. The final choice will be made by the state’s governor, David Freudenthal, a Democrat."

Would it be so hard for other states to follow suit?

Comments

Doesn't sound so sensible to me. All the Republicans have to do is nominate two completely unacceptable crazy people + the one they actually want to be the next senator.

It's bad enough allowing a state's governor to appoint whoever s/he wants to finish a senator's term. But surely it's even less democratic to have a rule that lets whichever party lost the last race for governor decide who gets to be the next senator.

Posted by Tom | June 5, 2007 8:56 AM

D'oh. Ignore previous comment. I had the wrong idea about what the rule was.

Posted by Tom | June 5, 2007 9:00 AM

Hopefully, Freudenthal will challenge whomever he appoints in '08. It would be a great opportunity for a pickup.

Posted by Greg | June 5, 2007 9:21 AM

The rule doesn't sound so sensible to me. Thomas may have been the GOP's nominee in his last Senate race, but once he won, he became Wyoming's Senator, not the Wyoming GOP's Senator. Put another way, that slot doesn't "belong" to the GOP, so why should the party get to select a successor, particularly in some back-room deal? It's even less democratic than just having the Governor pick -- at least the Governor was actually elected to something, unlike the Wyoming GOP. Can't believe you're actually defending this, Matt.

Posted by Glenn | June 5, 2007 10:25 AM

I have to agree with Glenn. The Wyoming GOP shouldn't have claim to the Senate seat because their candidate won the seat last time. Let the Governor/State Legislature pick an interim Senator and hold a special election to fill the seat for the remainder of the term.

Posted by NateP | June 5, 2007 10:33 AM

Whoa, that was sudden.

Posted by JP | June 5, 2007 10:44 AM

This is one of those areas where states' rights come into direct conflict with the overall right of the citizenry. It's difficult deciding the appropriate means of replacing a Senator who's died -- I think both sides here have made decent arguments, and reasonable people can disagree on which method works best. The point is, when each state has a different standard, you skew the will of the people -- and since this affects the overall make-up of a national legislative body, it has broad implications (granting we only really notice it when the Senate is as close as it is).

On a side note: did anybody really know much about Senator Thomas? This is probably horrible of me, but I've come to think of Idaho/Wyoming/Utah (Orrin Hatch excepted) Senators as mostly interchangeable right-wingers, who will ultimately be succeeded by other interchangeable right-wingers. Did Thomas do anything of note besides vote the party line?

Posted by demtom | June 5, 2007 10:47 AM

"I have to agree with Glenn. The Wyoming GOP shouldn't have claim to the Senate seat because their candidate won the seat last time."

Why not? The voting behavior research shows that a large majority of voters base their vote choice on party/ideology. So if what the people tend to vote for is the party and not the individual - shouldn't someone of the same party be appointed?

Though of course that's assuming we want to have appointed senators in the first place. It strikes me as preferable to move to the House model and just hold special elections right away for open seats. But if states want to save some money and delay those elections until the next general election it seems to me that naming (temporarily) someone whose ideology corresponds to the senator (chosen by the people) who died is appropriate.

Posted by Armand | June 5, 2007 11:06 AM

If the Republicans nominate a crazy fucker, Freudenthal should pick the crazy fucker. Then the Repubs, at best for them, have a nasty primary fight and eventually get a reasonable nominee. And at best for us they end up with a completely unelectable creep running for an open seat in 2008.

Posted by Anonymous | June 5, 2007 11:15 AM

Yeah, but if this rule were in place everywhere, we never would have had "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".

Posted by Dave | June 5, 2007 11:16 AM

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? You mean that movie where the Governor has to pick between three people to send to the Senate to fill an unexpired term?

Posted by Anonymous | June 5, 2007 11:26 AM

Err, I have no idea what "unexpired term" means but I think you get where I'm coming from. :-)

Posted by Anonymous | June 5, 2007 11:26 AM

The last thing we should do is let the seat lie vacant. God knows we can't have Wyoming's representation in the Senate fall to half that of California's, when it has about a sixtieth of the population.

Posted by Greg | June 5, 2007 11:34 AM

And is there nothing wrong with holding an actual election as other countries do in a similar situation. This is supposed to be a Democracy.

Posted by ndm | June 5, 2007 12:07 PM

There will be an election next year, no?

Posted by JP | June 5, 2007 12:13 PM

I don't see why there shouldn't be an election this year; preferably an election in a couple of months. If Wyoming's congressman had died, this is what would happen, and an election for a senator in Wyoming is, in fact, identical to the election of a congressman.

Posted by John | June 5, 2007 12:55 PM

I think there is no reason to not hold a special election right away. Modern technology makes it fairly easy, we don't travel by wagon and communicate by telegraph anymore.

Posted by Eric | June 5, 2007 12:56 PM

Why not? The voting behavior research shows that a large majority of voters base their vote choice on party/ideology.

Well, I don't know what "voting behavior research" you're referring to here, but isn't Wyoming itself evidence that, whatever may be true generally, isn't necessarily so? That is, in its top statewide officers, has Republican Senators, but a Democratic Governor. Looks to me like who is running from the party must matter to Wyoming's voters, at least enough to alter the outcomes.

I agree that states ought to call new elections -- the "default" provision in the 17th Amendment, by the way. I don't know why that amendment gave states the option of allowing the governor to choose; I assume that was some kind of compromise so that the selection of Senators by the states (and not the people of the states) wasn't completely undone by the amendment.

Posted by Glenn | June 5, 2007 1:41 PM

1. While I agree that Americans vote for individuals over parties far more than people in other nations, states like Wyoming tend to buck that rule when it comes to federal elections. Thomas entered the house in 1994 by beating Mike Sullivan, a pretty popular governor. Sullivan won a second term as governor in 1990 with 65% of the vote. In '94 he lost to Thomas 59-40.

As much as I'd like there to be a Sen. Freudenthal (or an appointed Sen. Sullivan, before I learned that wasn't possible), I think it's a stretch that Wyoming will change. If Cubin could survive in a year as bad as 2006, this tendency isn't likely to change.

2. Man, poor Craig Thomas. I know the real story here is how this will affect the shape of the senate, but even his home state paper (see link below) buries any details of his life in its story. And it's from the wire--apparently they didn't think to have an obit ready, as any competent publication would for a major local figure who's been seriously ill for six months.

Posted by Buddha Edwards | June 5, 2007 2:31 PM

"Well, I don't know what "voting behavior research" you're referring to here, but isn't Wyoming itself evidence that, whatever may be true generally, isn't necessarily so?"

Ummm, sure. I didn't say it was "necessarily" true - exceedingly few political phenomena are. But the masses and masses and masses of voting behavior studies that political scientists have conducted show that people vote party more than anything else. Are there other variables that may have an effect? Of course. But party explains (by far) most of the variation in vote choice in elections for federal offices.

I don't know the state office voting behavior literature as well, but I'd presume party may have a somewhat different effect there as the nature of responsibilities and powers at that level are so much different. It should be easier to win election as a member of the minority party in your state if you are not always clearly tied to the policies and priorities of your party's national leaders.

Posted by Armand | June 5, 2007 5:28 PM

The point is, when each state has a different standard, you skew the will of the people

Ah, but the Senate isn't a 'will of the people' chamber. It's a 'will of the states' chamber.

This is especially significant in those states with more Senators than House members, because there's a tendency for those states to split their votes by party across the various state and federal positions.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 5, 2007 6:06 PM