Voting Rights

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Voting Rights Archives page.

Preparing for the Worst: Representatives Legislate their Mortality

9/11 awakened the world to the possibility of a catastrophic terrorist attack that could disable or destroy the United States government. With this new and different worldview, House members drafted and passed HR 2844, The Continuity in Representation Act of 2004.

The bill, which passed the House on April 22, 2004 but still needs approval from the Senate and the president before becoming law, provides a plan for re-establishing the House of Representatives in the event that 100 or more members are incapacitated or killed.

The House of Representatives is the only piece of government without a backup plan. The Supreme Court can be re-appointed by the president; the president can be replaced by the vice president, then the speaker of the House, then the president pro tempore of the Senate, and so on (there is quite a long list of backups for the president). In addition, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution permits State governors to appoint Senators to vacant seats, but there is no comparable provision for the House.

What then would we do if the capitol were bombed and the House suffered significant losses?

HR 2844

The Constitution grants Congress the power to "make or alter" state laws governing "the times, places and manner of holding elections" for members of the House of Representatives. HR 2844’s writers took advantage of this power and created a law that would allow for quick elections after a disaster.

Specifically, the bill mandates elections to take place a month-and-a-half after "extraordinary circumstances" that cause the speaker of the House to announce 100 or more vacancies. Within 10 days, the political parties would nominate candidates to run in special elections. The nominations, campaigns, and elections would all occur within 45 days.

Some legislators fear that 45 days is too short a time for states to organize and re-elect representatives. Others argue that states are competent and will be capable during a time of crisis; some lawmakers pointed to California’s recall election as proof that states can administer an election quickly and efficiently.

Even if states were able to manage elections within 45 days, isn’t that a long time to go without a fully-functioning government?

The possibility of appointments

In June 2003, an independent commission studied this issue. The commission was headed by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford and was made up of a group of politically diverse public servants, including former Republican legislators Alan Simpson and Newt Gingrich.

After carefully reviewing what is being called "the continuity of government issue," the commission recommended that, in the event of an attack, temporary replacements be appointed to the House while elections are organized. To put this plan into place, Congress and the states would have to approve a constitutional amendment to allow for appointments to the House, since the Constitution does not currently permit them.

Although the House did not vote on the matter of appointments, much of the floor debate centered on this issue. The bill’s sponsor, F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wisconsin), adamantly opposes temporary appointments to the House, no matter the circumstances.

In a truthnews.net article called "A House Elected, Not Appointed," Sensenbrenner explains that appointing members to the House would destroy the very foundations of U.S. government. He argues that appointments are a threat to democracy and that the will of the people must be heard, especially during an emergency. Though he acknowledges terrorism as a real and pervasive threat, Sensenbrenner feels that the people’s constitutional right to direct and elected representation should not be impeded.

Considering democracy

What would you prefer in an emergency? Would you rather a temporary, appointed government be established after an attack? This solution would provide some stability and allow for immediate decision-making, but would let the governor of a state with a vacancy appoint anyone he or she chooses - probably someone from his or her own political party. Or, would you prefer that only elected officials make important post-attack decisions, although the House would not be restored for a minimum of 45 days? Despite the delay, democracy would remain in tact during a turbulent time.

During the floor debate, James Sensenbrenner discussed James Madison’s insistence that the House be composed only of representatives who are elected by the people. Sensenbrenner maintains Madison’s will. But could Madison and the other Founding Fathers have anticipated a post 9/11 world? The founders recognized the limits of their imaginations and so granted government the power to amend the constitution, should it become outdated.

At issue is the groundwork of our government. Do we need to reconstruct our foundation in order to withstand the hazards of our time? Or, is our vitality found in the preservation of our form of traditional democracy? Should representative democracy ever be set aside because of specific conditions in an ever-changing world?

Discuss these issues with other WomenMatter readers in one of our online forums. Then, contact your representatives and let them know what you think. If you haven’t already, register to vote. To stay informed, sign up for an e alert.

Update Posted on: 4/27/2004

click here to go to next section

return to top