Having been vacated by disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), New York’s Ninth District, which includes parts of Queens and Brooklyn, is scheduled to be filled this September. Former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman (D-NY), who represented the 16th District throughout the 70s and early 80s, has been mentioned as a possible replacement. Older readers may remember her for her progressive record on women’s issues and, more recently, her recommendation that former President George W. Bush be impeached.
Weiner himself was such a left-wing figurehead while in office, though he had different pet causes (no pun intended), so my guess is that Democrats in the Ninth District will be eager to have Holtzman on the ticket – even though, as you know, I don’t approve of district-hunting. My issue with this special election is not that Holtzman could be the Democratic standard-bearer therein. My issue is that it’s happening at all.
That may seem shocking at first. After all, don’t the people in the Ninth District deserve to be represented in the House as much as the next district? Of course they do. That’s the exact reason for my opposition to Weiner’s resignation, not to mention theirs. He would have zero chance of re-election next year and only marginal political clout, but at least they’d have someone to whom they could direct their federal concerns for that amount of time.
Electing someone new this fall would be a hollow way to make up for that loss. Holtzman – who, let’s face it, is more electable in the Ninth than any Republican, and porbably any other Democrat – would be in office for just over a year before going up for re-election in 2012. Due to the nature of the House, most of her time in office would be spent campaigning. And how well does she know the Ninth’s needs, and how much can she learn by September?
I wouldn’t be convinced that special elections for House members are the best way to go unless their terms were longer. The idea of two-year terms has never made sense to me in the first place. I would be interested in how election cycles would change if both representatives and senators were on four-year terms, as Canadian MPs are (between majority governments, anyway). It might save some money in the long run.
If only 18 months or less remain before the next election, I’m sure districts and states can survive with one less person speaking for them in Congress for that time. If not, they always have Twitter town halls.
