Home Page > Editorial and Op-Ed
Vote for Elections
Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:41:00
To many local politicians, elections are essentially an annoyance, a technicality they must submit to every two or four years, but, pragmatically, a waste of time. Rarely are races contested in any real way, and even more rarely does an incumbent lose.
So the lack of real traction for reforming special elections and the process of filling vacancies is hardly surprising. But that does not mean it is acceptable.
Now we have a governor, senator and comptroller who sit in seats the voters did not give them, and might well have had an unelected attorney general as well, had David Paterson gone in another direction in replacing Hillary Clinton. We also have a Legislature where well over one-quarter of the members first won office in inherently questionable special elections, as well as several members of Congress. And we currently have an open spot in the 20th Congressional district that the governor was apparently in no hurry to fill, not to mention a lieutenant governor’s office that will have been vacant for two years and nine months before it is filled again.
Any one of these would be a problem. Together, they represent how problematic it is to refer to the government in New York as an elected one. Given the incumbency re-election rate that is an irrefutable reality of politics everywhere, a group of political leaders that is so often first put in office by appointments or railroaded elections cannot truly claim to be representative of New Yorkers.
Now that there are so many people who were appointed or first elected in special elections, there should be the critical mass to begin productive discussions about what to do and the will to actually do it. Special elections should be mandated when any of the statewide offices become vacant—and within months, not almost two years later, as will happen with Kirsten Gillibrand. For vacancies in the House, State Senate or Assembly, the power to call special elections must be taken out of the discretion of the governor and put on a set schedule as well. If those in government want their constituents to believe their work is actually important, then they should be reluctant to allow them to believe that seats can remain empty for so long without causing problems.
There are other changes to the process that might be considered, like following the approach New York City takes to special City Council elections and other states have for special House elections by making these strangely timed races non-partisan. Given the short windows provided, a system of public funds for all who meet the threshold to appear on the ballot would also make sense. This does not necessarily mean that all elections should be non-partisan or publicly funded, though sparking that debate would not be a bad thing at all. Up until the moment he announced his choice, Gov. Paterson griped throughout the process of deliberating about the Senate appointment that he neither asked for the responsibility nor was sure it should be his. That was over a month ago. If he really did have a problem with the law, this would be a perfect opportunity for him to exercise some executive leadership and spearhead the movement to change the law, especially now that his dithering over setting the date to fill Gillibrand’s House seat has called the sincerity of those complaints into question. That he ascended to his current office without the assent of voters and was first elected to his State Senate seat in a special election only makes this even more appropriate.
But there should not really be much need for Paterson to lead on this. These are the kind of common-sense changes in government which should be voted up unanimously. And as for those that would take a constitutional amendment? There is an election coming up next November when New Yorkers will get a chance to vote on the governor, comptroller and senator who have been given to them, to select the lieutenant governor they have been missing and all the legislators. If all of these people combine to ensure the ballot also contains amendments which would fix the election system, the result would be a truly special election.
--
ABOVE: Photo By: Andrew Schwartz
So the lack of real traction for reforming special elections and the process of filling vacancies is hardly surprising. But that does not mean it is acceptable.
Now we have a governor, senator and comptroller who sit in seats the voters did not give them, and might well have had an unelected attorney general as well, had David Paterson gone in another direction in replacing Hillary Clinton. We also have a Legislature where well over one-quarter of the members first won office in inherently questionable special elections, as well as several members of Congress. And we currently have an open spot in the 20th Congressional district that the governor was apparently in no hurry to fill, not to mention a lieutenant governor’s office that will have been vacant for two years and nine months before it is filled again.
Any one of these would be a problem. Together, they represent how problematic it is to refer to the government in New York as an elected one. Given the incumbency re-election rate that is an irrefutable reality of politics everywhere, a group of political leaders that is so often first put in office by appointments or railroaded elections cannot truly claim to be representative of New Yorkers.
Now that there are so many people who were appointed or first elected in special elections, there should be the critical mass to begin productive discussions about what to do and the will to actually do it. Special elections should be mandated when any of the statewide offices become vacant—and within months, not almost two years later, as will happen with Kirsten Gillibrand. For vacancies in the House, State Senate or Assembly, the power to call special elections must be taken out of the discretion of the governor and put on a set schedule as well. If those in government want their constituents to believe their work is actually important, then they should be reluctant to allow them to believe that seats can remain empty for so long without causing problems.
There are other changes to the process that might be considered, like following the approach New York City takes to special City Council elections and other states have for special House elections by making these strangely timed races non-partisan. Given the short windows provided, a system of public funds for all who meet the threshold to appear on the ballot would also make sense. This does not necessarily mean that all elections should be non-partisan or publicly funded, though sparking that debate would not be a bad thing at all. Up until the moment he announced his choice, Gov. Paterson griped throughout the process of deliberating about the Senate appointment that he neither asked for the responsibility nor was sure it should be his. That was over a month ago. If he really did have a problem with the law, this would be a perfect opportunity for him to exercise some executive leadership and spearhead the movement to change the law, especially now that his dithering over setting the date to fill Gillibrand’s House seat has called the sincerity of those complaints into question. That he ascended to his current office without the assent of voters and was first elected to his State Senate seat in a special election only makes this even more appropriate.
But there should not really be much need for Paterson to lead on this. These are the kind of common-sense changes in government which should be voted up unanimously. And as for those that would take a constitutional amendment? There is an election coming up next November when New Yorkers will get a chance to vote on the governor, comptroller and senator who have been given to them, to select the lieutenant governor they have been missing and all the legislators. If all of these people combine to ensure the ballot also contains amendments which would fix the election system, the result would be a truly special election.
--
ABOVE: Photo By: Andrew Schwartz
