This Thanksgiving morning, as I review some of the news, I find the rhetoric around this little Lt. Governor replacement issue quite entertaining as well as disturbing. In the news, there is annoyance over:
A) the mere existence of an LG
B) the candidate chosen to fill the vacancy
C) the "horrendous" cost of possible special elections to replace the domino’d open seat[s] caused by appointing a current legislator as Lt Governor
My, ahem, ‘favorite’ line may be about the governor, by moving to fill the vacancy "has chosen politics over seniors and children." [It was uttered by someone seeking statewide office]
As a duly elected Constitutional officer, the Lt. Governor does have certain responsibilities. A key one is a vote on the State Lands Commission, which would have jurisdiction over key oil drilling policy. The bottom line should be is that if the people of California through their Constitution have provided or allowed for the existence of a Lt Guv, and thus vote one into office, then it’s the obligation of the Governor and the Legislature to appoint and confirm a replacement as a vacancy occurs…similarly as elections are soon required when any legislative seat opens up.
Certainly we’ve seen plenty of special elections in this state for replacing vacant Assembly, Senate and Congressional seats, as well as statewide specials for the 2003 recall, the 2005 special with the reform initiatives, and the 2008 "term limit extension special" election masquerading as an early presidential primary.
I haven’t seen the leadership of the state complain much when a state senator decides to step down to assume a L.A. Supervisor or City Council seat soon after election to the Legislature…nor all the domino elections resulting from that. To ‘wait til the next election’ over a year to fill a legislator’s vacant seat would be a lack of representation [dare I use the word disenfranchisement?] for those constituents of their important issues and district case work.
Today is a time when we are giving thanks for all we have in this great country, and for those who fought for our ability to have, keep and enjoy the bounty we have. Putting a price on the election process for our representative republic seems very duplicitous from the same people that refuse to materially do anything about how much state government wastes. 4000+ bills introduced each 2 years? The huge bond debt? Broken-beyond-belief state budgets? Yet they want to quibble about the cost to fufill a constitutional obligation for the people’s representation to be complete.
Now, the Lt Guv being needed or not is a discussion that could be had, but not in the context of this current vacancy. If the people want to eliminate it, then the same legislators complaining about the cost and the ‘uselessness’ of the office should propose the elimination of it via a constitutional amendment that voters can decide as early as next June’s ballot, if the legislature so moves. Will they? Doubt it! So which is it, do without it for over a year because it’s ‘not needed’ and thus move to eliminate it to save money, OR fill it soon since it has some level of importance in California’s governance…pick one, you can’t have it both ways!
The Senate President Pro Tem’s advocating to leave it vacant, while also benefiting as the acting Lt Guv for over a year doesn’t quite pass the smell test. Also, who will cast the tie breaker in a 20 to 20 Senate vote with the Pro Tem also acting as Temp Lt Guv? Don’t say it can’t ever happen. Citing the Dems 25 seat control over the Senate as in reality preventing a 20 vote tie from ever occuring on any bill, as a reason to not have a tie breaking Lt Guv…why, wouldn’t that would be political? So, get over yourselves, schedule timely confirmation[s] for whoever the candidate may be, fill the office and quit citing "politics," as by doing anything less IS "political."
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.