With all the recent talk of Constitutional amendments for this and that, here's a good example of what amendments are for.
The House on Thursday took up legislation that would require the holding of special elections within 45 days of the speaker confirming that a terrorist attack or other catastrophic event had left at least 100 seats vacant in the 435-seat body. ...I'd tend to agree that legislation alone isn't enough, since it's not at all clear that Congress has the power to authorize special elections under any circumstances. There is no Constitutional provision for filling a vacant House seat before the next general election; it probably wasn't considered necessary 200 years ago, because House elections come frequently and it wasn't conceivable that a significant fraction of chamber could be eliminated at one stroke.The Senate already allows governors to appoint senators when a vacancy occurs prior to an election. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has proposed a constitutional change giving states the flexibility to come up with their own methods of quickly filling seats in the aftermath of a terrorist attack on Congress. ...
Simpson and Cutler, in a recent letter, said not one of their members went into the task with the desire to amend the Constitution. "Nevertheless, the evidence we considered led us to conclude that, for the sake of the Constitution itself, the security of our nation and the preservation of the Congress, a constitutional amendment is necessary to provide continuity in the face of a catastrophic attack."
I read about this new legislation with interest. One provision that interested me the most was the suggestion that in addition to the elections, each congressperson would name a successor to carry on their work until the election could be held. I think that sounds like a good idea. Of course, it's not totally "democratic", but there's nothing democratic about a terrorist attack, and at any rate the successors would only be in power 45 days. If they wanted to be in power longer than that, they'd have to listen to the people who are about to vote on their election. And if we are attacked that badly, I don't want to have to wait 45 days to declare war on whoever did this to us.
I think that since the states send the representatives, that the states should have a law in place regarding succession. Perhaps the amendment, instead of requiring special elections, could require merely that some provision be in place to replace the congresspeople within 45 days.
Is this just prudence, or is it possible there's a new threat?
WH: I don't like the idea of politicians selecting their successors without an election. Perhaps if they ran as "vice representatives" or something.
B: I doubt it. One of the 9/11 planes was headed for DC, possibly the Capitol Building.