How Long Should the Lt. Gov. Serve as Governor?
As I wrote below, it seems very clear to me that the Utah Constitution specifies that a Lt. Governor would serve only until the next general election, after taking over the position of Governor, meaning that the people would not go more than 2-years without the chance to actually elect their Governor. That might be a legal disagreement that won’t be resolved, short of legal or political action.
In terms of what is best for the State and the people’s franchise rights, do you think it would be better for the Lt. Gov. (new Gov after the replacement) (1) to serve out the remainder of the term (no matter how much time is left, even if it is all 4 years) or (2) to serve until the next general election comes along?
In terms of what is best for the State and the people’s franchise rights, do you think it would be better for the Lt. Gov. (new Gov after the replacement) (1) to serve out the remainder of the term (no matter how much time is left, even if it is all 4 years) or (2) to serve until the next general election comes along?
posted by steve u. at 7/31/2006
Subscribe
11 Comments:
If possible, please try to keep present office holders out of the discussion, since a Governor actually hasn’t been elected for the 2008 term (though, granted, we would seem to have a front-runner) and since these kinds of decisions should be guided by a long-term perspective rather than current personalities.
The AP called me for the story that ran this weekend regarding whether a deal had been cut. Again, it's not my issue or my concern.
That makes perfect sense to have an unelected person serve no more than two years until the next general election, no matter how much of the current governors time is left.
I'm all for letting the voters have a say in the matter at the earliest possible opportunity. What is to be gained by not doing this?
Some might argue that allowing it to go four years would engender more stability both politically and administratively, but this is actually a silly reason for denying voters an opportunity to vote on the matter sooner. Our system was established with relatively short terms (when you think of most of the political systems in existence at the inception of our country) for a reason. A desire to maintain the status quo does not trump the desire for proper representation.
Some might argue that it would be inconvenient, would unnecessarily incur the costs of another campaign, and that the former Lt. Gov. would likely win anyway. Oh, really? If that were consistently the case, Gov. Walker would still be in office today. Let's face it; our system is not always 'convenient,' but it is designed to increase the likelihood of good government.
Get the choice into the people's hands as soon as possible.
The current flap about the the succession of the Lt.Governor sound more like an internal power struggle within the party in power than a legitimate political debate. When the the Governor and Lt.Governor are elected, they are both on the ballot as a package. The Lt.Governor is openly and leagally elected to succeed the Governor if, for any reason, the Governor does not complete his term in office. Every voter understands that when the he votes. If who is to succeed the governor is a concern, perhaps we should pay more attention to the "other person" on the ticket when we elect a Governor. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The wording in the State Constitution is clear: the Lt. Gov assumes the duties of the Gov until the next general election, even if it's a mid-term. What's not clear is why the state does not follow the Federal precedent, where the Vice President simply "becomes the President" and serves out the remainder of the four-year term. What's the rationale for being different? In an earlier comment it was said we should "get the choice into the people's hands as soon as possible." If that's the case, why not have a special election immediately?
No, I think we should follow the Federal example. Look, you vote for both the Gov and the Lt. Gov. They're called a "ticket". If you have no confidence in the Lt. Gov doing the Gov's job, you should not vote the ticket.
Of course, that's going to be somewhat of a problem for Utahns, the majority of whom just vote straight Republican regardless of what names are on the ballot. They know the state GOP convention has selected the right Gov and Lt. Gov.
Actually, when you get down to it, there is little need of an election anyway. Just let the GOP Central Committee pick them. Save the state a lot of time and money.
Ed, you apparently haven't attended a GOP state convention if you think the central committee can get away with hand-picking the position. It can be an eye opening experience.
Since Scott Matheson, the final gubernatorial race has always gone to the GOP candidate. You can whine about that, or you can do something about it. Studies show that most Utah voters don't mindlessly vote for the Republican candidate. Many of them would be open to other options if they felt that their views would be represented. But most feel that Democratic Party principles and tactics are hostile to some of their important hot-button issues. Fix that problem, and you'll see different voting patterns.
I apologise for the ignorance but I know in other states the Lt. Gov. is voted independently from the Governor. Is it not the case is Utah? A candidate for Gov. actually picks a running mate? Please enlighten me.
If that is the case, having the Lt. Governor succeed for the length of the term, regardless of the length, seems the most logical to me.
Perhaps there could be an amendment that says if the Gov. steps down voluntarily, a special election is held.
Salem,
The Gubernatorial candidate picks a running mate, and they are elected as a ticket.
One reason for departing from the federal Pres/VP pattern is that there is far less burden and dislocation in turning Utah over to a new administration than turning the nation over to a new administration. Also, it is extremely unlikely that someone would run for President while actually planning on doing something "better" after the election, while that theoretically might occur at the state level.
Scott,
C'mon man, I was just being sarcastic. Don't get all uptight and accuse me of "whining"...that's not very becoming of you. And as for the "hostile principles and tactics" that drive you to the GOP, I think the tide is turning. It certainly is in every other state. Eventually the voters even here in Utah will wake up and come to their senses. Charlie Cook is predicting a HUGE voter backlash against the GOP this November. That's because today's GOP bears no resemblance to the one of Ronald Reagan. Those days are over.
Steve,
I can accept your first argument (less turmoil in turning over a state administration vs. a federal one), but not the second. It does not account for those occasions when succession is required because of death or serious illness.
The more I think about it, shame on any governor who resigns to take a "better" job. Doesn't s/he take an oath of office when elected? Doesn't that oath mean anything?
Ed,
You do not understand the dynamics of why there seems to be a "Change". It is not because people are becoming Democrats, it is because many conservatives are unhappy with some of the fake Republicans in office. Liberals have always hated the Republicans, so when the polls show that support for Republicans is getting smaller, who do you think is effecting this?? It is the conservative Republicans who are showing dis-pleasure with Democrats hiding in Republican clothing. It is not that Republicans are "seeing the error of their ways" trust me, they are NOT turning Democrat.
So in the end, when it is all said and done, the "big change" that the Democrats are hoping for in November will more than likely NOT take place, because conservatives would rather vote for a centerist Republican than a liberal Democrat who does not support their leftist value system.
Good points, Ed. Charlie Cook could be right. He's a good analyst, but he's not completely objective in the matter. You hit it right on the money when you note that congressional Republicans have moved away from their conservative moorings.
But I agree with Carl. People that have supported Republicans in the past, but that are now disenchanted with the GOP will more likely vote by not voting rather than by voting Democratic.
When you say that Utahns will eventually come to their senses, I suppose you mean that they will vote more Democratic. Actually, given shifting demographics in the state, I think you will see a dramatically different political landscape in Utah a couple of decades down the road. It is very likely that you will see more support for Democrats.
<< Home