| Dear Governor Paterson:
As I watch the confirmation hearings for Senator Clinton to become the next Secretary of State, your recent comment regarding seniority as a reason not to appoint a "caretaker" to succeed her in the Senate comes back to haunt me. It haunts me because I believe it to be an inaccurate assessment of the situation.
Seniority in the Senate is not a measure of absolute time of service. It is a measure of relative time of service. When two Senators have the exact same length of service, the population of the states they represent makes the difference. In addition, status as a "junior" or "senior" Senator from one's state, and whether one is in the minority or majority party make a difference. Nothing else matters in terms of seniority.
In our case, you will almost certainly appoint someone who will be a member of the majority party. In addition, I am confident that we will elect someone from the majority party in 2010, and again in 2012, so that is not really an issue.
Whoever you appoint will be the junior Senator from New York, and whether that person is elected by the people in two (and four) years or someone else wins the seat, whoever wins will also be the junior Senator, so that is not an issue.
The key issue is relative length of service in the Senate. As of right now, 98 Senators will have a greater length of service that whoever you appoint, and depending on when a final determination is made in Minnesota, your choice could be last on the list. Assuming Senator Hutchison of Texas runs for Governor there, that state will choose a new Senator in 2010. The only other state larger than New York is California, and Senator Boxer will almost certainly win another term in 2010. This means that, at worst, whoever wins in 2010, if that person is not the person your appoint, could only drop two spots in seniority, and one of those spots will probably be to a member of the minority party, which isn't nearly as important.
In short, if you were to appoint a "caretaker" Senator, the issue of seniority would be practically irrelevant.
All New Yorkers understand that you would want someone who can get things done for New York, and if that person is replaced in two years it could slow things down for our state - a little. I am confident that our senior Senator, Chuck Schumer, will be able to ensure that we will not suffer as a result.
So you can appoint a "caretaker" Senator with full confidence that the interests of New York will not be hurt, so long as you appoint someone who can learn quickly - in other words, appoint someone who is qualified. Fortunately, there are several people who could do an excellent job for two years, and then step aside so that we have a proper chance for the voters to choose their next Senator in 2010. I hope you will choose from that group. |
