Come back with me to the summer of 2009. Filing just ended for the Chapel Hill Town Council and Mayoral races when powerhouse Council Member Bill Strom suddenly announced he was resigning and moving to New York. Strom was called "Machiavellian" and much worse.
First it was just the typical Strom haters that accused him of attempting to manipulate the process by waiting until just after the filing period, so that his replacement could be chosen by his friends on the Town Council. Strom himself claimed the timing was purely accidental. However, in the following weeks information trickled out showing that Strom’s actions were every bit as intentional as they looked to the skeptics.
Once again people cried out against the appointment process and called for democratic election of a mid-term replacement. Having seen this happen many times, I found myself defending the appointment process as the most efficient way to keep the town running without the huge expense of special elections. (Remember how well that worked in Carrboro after a similar outcry?)
As a frequent defender of this type of appointment, I must point out that while it is effective and can be fair, it should only be done in moderation. In the case of a municipal official that sits at the table with several colleagues, one appointment every few years amounts to a small chink in the armor of democracy.
However, appointments have also been used all too often to fill state governmental elected offices from Orange County. These are offices that are then held for at least a decade until usually the legislator resigns so that the local parties can select the next incumbent. For example in State House district 56 (currently held by Verla Insko), the last time there was an open primary without an incumbent was in 1972! This has also happened persistently in our Senate and Judicial districts.
Combined with such long tenure in these seats, this truly amounts to the voters having very little control over who represents us in the General Assembly. We have been incredibly fortunate to be blessed with such progressive and pragmatic leaders in our delegation. Ellie Kinnaird is among the best examples of this, doing our district proud and holding her principled banner high in Raleigh for so many years. But she has long held the idea that she could (and should) select her replacement. This is where I part ways with her.
I wonder who would represent us if they were selected in a competitive Democratic primary? How might they govern differently if they were forced to convince voters without the power of incumbency? And when will we have the opportunity to find out?
Issues:
Comments
Ruby, you said you want voters to decide how to fill the seat but you're not against appointments. So under what situations are you comfortable with appointments?
After the party chose Verla to succeed Anne Barnes, Moses Carey challenged her in a primary and lost. Moses was a contender to fill the vacancy caused by Rep. Barnes's resignation. In this case the primary was a continuation of the appointment election and the results were affirmed. There are very few politicians who would be willing to go through the
appointment process to only serve the duration of a term and step aside. I have often found that party regulars often reflect the electorate of Orange County as a whole. My belief is that if there is a credible candidate to challenge an incumbent, appointed or not, then they will be successful. Eric Mansfield and Marcus Brandon and both good examples. However, they ran against incumbents where there was a groundswell of support for change. Most folks do not vote against incumbents in a primary unless given a reason. There's been very few times I've voted against an incumbent in an election.
While I sort-of agree with you about Sen Kinnaird (just doing what she wanted and not showing up in the Senate would have been one option), I don't think a blanket statement like this is right.What about, for example, Mayor Kleinschmidt? He is now elected in odd years but if an even year seat appealed to him, I would be most supportive of his seeking higher office. If he knew exactly what was going to happen in the even year, you could say he shouldn't run for re-election in the preceeding odd year, but who knows with certainty when those opportunities will present? And should he have a gap year in his public service assuming he will win the higher office or should he serve the year and move if/when he's in another office? Same holds doubly-true for those elected officials in 4 year terms.I am supportive in general of appointments being biased towards those who don't plan to run for re-election. Thus you aren't picking an incumbent, but a placeholder to serve out the term. I think Jean Hamilton is a terrific example of how that can work extremely well (in the seat I occupy now). Alternatively, appointments of incumbents can be useful to bring diversity to a board for people who aren't sure about running. As I was talking with people about running for the school board this year, several were willing (and I believe quite capable) to serve but hesitant about running as a 1st time challenger. I really don't mind appointments being used to bring that additional long-term value to a board.
OK, I turned in my resignation from Chapel Hill Town council in 1979 during my second Mayoral campaign. Since my August resignation was effective December 3, it did not add another seat on the ballot. I picked that date because if I was not elected Mayor I had decided not to continue serving on Council I was sick and tired of it after six years, and was working in Raleigh 60 hours per week January through July and was totally exhausted. But I did not want to be off council in August, I felt I had unfinished business (I finished third with 29% of the vote so that was the end of my running for office). I never even thought of the issue of adding another seat to the electoral pool. It all turned out well since Joe Herzenberg was appointed to my vacancy. Interestingly, between the November election and the organizational meeting in December meeting, the Mayor-elect called and told me that they were not accepting my resignation. I told him again why I was resigning and finally told him that they could do whatever they wanted with my resignation but I wasn't coming to any more meetings. (BTW if I had been elected Mayor I planned to quit my job in Raleigh) And Mark Chilton might be the king of resignations. Think he resigned Chapel Hill Town Council in 97 to go with Quaker to her medical residency in BC Canada, then in 05 pretty sure he resigned his Carrboro Alderman seat mid-term to take the Mayor's office. Then, if he had gotten the State Senate nod he would have resigned as Mayor three months before the end of his term.
Didn't realize the appointments went back that far in 56. I hope Rep. Inkso bucks the trend whenever she chooses to retire.
actually in the 1970 election Ike Andrews and Carl Smith were elected in the two seat Orange/Chatham House district. Ike did not seek re-election in 1972 because he ran and won in the 4th Congressional District. I am almost positive that Carl Smith ran in the Democratic primary in 1972 and lost. Trish Stanford (then Hunt, then Love) and Ed Holmes won the nominations. Pete Tripodi, a 21-year old UNC junior also ran. I remember this well as I actually announced my candidacy for that seat in October 1971 then dropped out in December, before filling even opened. I remember going to talk to Carl Smith late 1971 about the upcoming campaign. Pete met an awful end two years later, killing himself on top of his girlfriend's grave in Burlington.http://www.carolinaalumnireview.com/carolinaalumnireview/1972jan?pg=17#pg17
Aaron Keck has an interesting and intellectual take on this: http://chapelboro.com/columns/aaron-keck/democracy-the-power-elite-and-the-state-senate-race/
Before 1952 all legislative vacancies were filled by special election as it was required by the State constitution. The 1951 session put an amendment on the ballot to eliminate the requirement, and the voters approved it. The problem prior to that is the requirement of an election eliminated representation for the area if the vacancy occurred in the several months after the election, because by the time there was a primary, second primary, and general election, 3-5 months would have passed, and thus sometimes the winner would have had to go through three rounds to win elections. The "party appoints" approach was selected as preserving the party balance of the previous election, as low turnout special elections could change the result. Any changes in the system would have to be made statewide.