WASHINGTON: On Wednesday, Democratic Senator Tim Johnson collapsed and was rushed to hospital suffering from stroke-like symptoms. He's undergone emergency surgery to stop bleeding in his brain; for now the prognosis remains unclear. And for the last three days, Washington has been transfixed, for the simple reason that if Senator Johnson were to prove unable to continue serving as a senator, his replacement would be appointed by South Dakota's Republican governor, Mike Rounds, and the Democrats would lose control of the Senate if Governor Rounds named a Republican.
It should be said, of course, that this is unlikely to be the case. The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution provides that when a senatorial vacancy occurs, the governor of the respective state is entitled to appoint a new senator; but "vacancy" has been consistently interpreted as applying only to the death of a senator. Senators have retained their seats even after suffering debilitating strokes. Indeed, perhaps the best example is one of Senator Johnson's predecessors from South Dakota, Karl Mundt, who remained in office for four years after a stroke. Senator Johnson's doctors are increasingly optimistic; and even if Sen. Johnson remains in the hospital on January 4, 2007, when the Senate votes on its organisation, the Democrats will prevail by a vote of 50-49.
But Senator Johnson's illness is a timely reminder of the fragility of the American electoral system. If, hypothetically, he were to leave the Senate, his replacement would presumably be a Republican, hand-picked by the Republican governor, who remain as Senator until the 2008 election; the Senate would be left with a 50-50 split; and Vice President Dick Cheney, whose sole duty under the Constitution is to serve as President of the Senate, would break the tie in favour of the Republicans. Just like that, the results of the November elections would be reversed -- and all without a ballot being cast by a single voter.
That control of the entire United States Senate could hinge on the vagaries of illness and the political affiliation of a single governor illustrates the extent to which the US constitution, an 18th century document, fails to take into account perhaps the most basic reality of modern politics: the centrality of political parties. Although the Seventeenth Amendment was proposed and ratified in 1913, it is very much in keeping with the views of the 18th century framers, who were disdainful of the very notion of political parties. And while several states -- Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Utah, and Wyoming -- require the governor to appoint to the Senate persons from the same political party as the previous incumbent, they are firmly in the minority. South Dakota has passed no such law.
The constitutional procedures for removing criminal or disabled presidents from office are similarly flawed. (The United States does not, alas, have a "no confidence" procedure for removing merely incompetent presidents; but that's another story.) Under the Succession in Office Act, passed in 1947, the Speaker of the House of Representatives is a short step from the presidency, next in line behind the Vice President. In periods of "divided government", the United States could therefore plausibly face the prospect of a Democratic President being succeeded by a Republican, or vice versa.
Bill Clinton was, of course, impeached but not convicted; had he been less fortunate, the arch-conservative Newt Gingrich would have been a heartbeat from the Oval Office. Similarly, Richard Nixon might easily have been replaced by Democratic Speaker Carl Albert had Gerald Ford not been available.—Dawn/The Guardian News Service
