Little to No Precedent for Forcibly Unseating Incapacitated Senators

Doint a little googling last night, reader robliberal landed on an important article written five years ago by NPR political junkie Ken Rudin for The Washington Post that shows there is little to no precedent for forcibly unseating a member of Congress due to illness or other incapacitation.

Question: I know that U.S. Senators have resigned for health or other reasons, but has one ever been removed from office because he/she was physically incapacitated or unable to discharge the duties of the office for health-related reasons?
- Myra Sletson, Rebersburg, Penn.

No. The only way the Senate can remove a member is by a vote to expel, and there has never been any desire to do that for a health-related cause. Sen. Karl Mundt (R-S.D.) suffered a debilitating stroke in 1969 but refused to resign and stayed in office until his term expired in January 1973 - although he never showed up for work following his infirmity. Republicans pressured Mundt to step down shortly before the 1970 elections, when it appeared the GOP was going to lose the governorship, and with it their ability to appoint a Senate successor. There was never talk of a motion to expel, though the Republican Conference eventually did strip him of his committee assignments. In November of that year, a Democrat was elected governor, so the Republicans who were urging Mundt's resignation turned to hoping he would serve until his term expired.

There were other, similar situations. Rep. John Grotberg (R-Ill.) lapsed into a coma in January 1986 after participation in an experimental program for his colon cancer caused him to have a heart seizure. His family and staff refused to consider resignation, and the House took no action. He even won re-nomination to the House in the March GOP primary that year, but his family finally relented and announced he would not run again. He remained a member of the House until his death in November 1986.

In the spring of 1964, Sen. Clair Engle (D-Calif.) was dying of brain cancer, but refused Democratic entreaties to resign. In June, when the Senate voted to break the filibuster that had stymied the civil rights bill, the dying Engle was wheeled onto the Senate floor to vote for cloture by motioning with his hand. He died a month later.

In the spring of 1943, Sen. Carter Glass (D-Va.) was 85 years old, in poor health and simply stopped coming to work. He died in May of 1946, still a senator but no longer a visitor to Capitol Hill. And according to Sen. Robert Byrd's (D-W.Va.) invaluable book of Senate historical statistics, Sen. James Grimes (R-Iowa) suffered a stroke in 1869 and remained in office as an invalid until his death in February of 1872. But there was no move in the Senate to declare any of the aforementioned seats vacant.

The only instance I can think of where lawmakers took action involved Gladys Spellman of Maryland. The Democratic House member suffered a massive heart attack in October of 1980 while campaigning that left her in a semi-conscious, coma-like state from which she never emerged. She won re-election with ease, but once it was determined that there was no prospect for recovery, the House voted to declare the seat vacant in February 1981.

The folks at Fox News may be salivating over the possibility of declaring Senator Johnson -- whose situation we still know very little about, and thus speculation is extremely hasty -- unfit to serve, but it seems rather clear: There is strong precedent for Congress moving very slowly before unseating one of their members for health reasons, more often than not allowing members to serve at their own discretion rather than using the power of Congress to enact their will.

Tags: Senate (all tags)

Comments

32 Comments

Those were before the RWNM

Those cases all occured before the creation of the modern Right-Wing Noise Machine.

So if Senator Johnson is incapaciated (pure speculation at this point), the RWNM, led by Fox, Limbaugh, etc. along with the Repubs in Congress and the WH, will wage a campaign to pressure Johnson to step down, as if this was the normal course of things and the only correct thing to do. They'll accuse the Dems of playing politics, party over country (or at least state), etc.

If Johnson is incapacitated, be prepared for the Noise Machine to go into full throttle.

by LiberalFromPA 2006-12-14 08:02AM | 0 recs
Yes...

Even if he is incapacitated at time of the organizational vote they'd look like assholes if they forced him off his recovery to go to the Senate and vote for Reid for speaker.

And remember, despite all this partisanship, these guys really are chummy with one another behind the scenes.

by jgkojak 2006-12-14 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes...

He would not need to vote for Reid.  So long as he is not replaced, Reid wins 50-49.  (I assume that is a win.  If someone knows that you need a majority, not a plurality, I stand corrected.)  

by hilltopper 2006-12-14 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Little to No Precedent for Forcibly Unseating

There is no possibility for a special election in South Dakota law.

by Jonathan Singer 2006-12-14 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Little to No Precedent for Forcibly Unseating

Mike Rounds was briefly making noise about replacing Tim Johnson last night according to the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader.  South Dakota's Secretary of State and a legal researcher for the state both declared that under South Dakota and constitutional law, Johnson's disability was not grounds for removing him from office.

Since Rounds was the doofus who pushed the no-loopholes abortion ban through, I kind of expect him to try something.  We should have a better idea within two days of Tim Johnson's condition.  There is a good chance that all this will be moot.

by David Kowalski 2006-12-14 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Little to No Precedent for Forcibly Unseating

"12-11-5.   Special election to fill senate vacancy.  The special
election to fill the vacancy of a senator shall be held at the same
time as the next general election. The general election laws shall
apply unless inconsistent with this chapter."

Source: SL 1979, ch 99, § 2.

That means 2008, which is when Johnson would be up anyway. Sorry Rounds you will just have to run or push some one to run.

by DaveB 2006-12-14 10:20AM | 0 recs
by Alice Marshall 2006-12-14 08:22AM | 0 recs
Just Sayin' == Just Talkin' So I Can Hear Myself?

Because that noise that's comin out of you,
ain't no one sayin it but you.

Some us have character.

by Teaser 2006-12-14 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Little to No Precedent for Forcibly Unseating

The Reich-wingers are only making noises about this, because they can get the GOP Governor to name a replacement, probably another ReThug, and swing the Senate back to a 50-50 tie and Cheney gets to break the tie; thereby putting the Senate back under ReThug Control.

But Lieberman is most likely to do that anyway, regardless or not of Johnson's recovery (and from the accounts I'm hearing, they're pretty good).

I think Lieberman's presence is more potentially harmful than Johnson's physical condition.  If anything, his wife can stand in for him until 2008 if he's not recovered by then.

by Political Junkie 2006-12-14 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Little to No Precedent for Forcibly Unseating

That is, Johnson's wife...

by Political Junkie 2006-12-14 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Little to No Precedent for Forcibly Unseating

One Name

STROM THURMAN

If he wasn't removed for being unfit to serve during his last few years, then no one should be.

Nuff said, true believers.

by yitbos96bb 2006-12-14 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Little to No Precedent for Forcibly Unseating

Thurmond was a Senator in name only for his last years and the Democrats made no move to try to force him out. There are Republicans with health problems in both houses as well.

If the GOP tries to force him out it would backfire politically.
If the GOP makes a move it will give the Democrats more issues for 2008.  

In a conservative state like South Dakota I think it would especially backfire on the GOP and would just about guarantee Stephanie Herseth would win the seat in 2008.

by robliberal 2006-12-14 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Little to No Precedent for Forcibly Unseating

Yeah, my spelling sucks :-(

by yitbos96bb 2006-12-14 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Spellman's Seat

You might be interested in knowing that after Gladys Spellman's seat was declared vacant, a special election was held and was won by STENY HOYER!

by Barbara in DC 2006-12-14 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Spellman's Seat

A House precedent doesn't count for much in the Senate. Also, Rep. Spellman's seat was not declared vacant until she failed to be sworn in for her new term. Sen. Johnson was sworn in on 1/3/2003, and thus does not need to be sworn in again (except to try impeachments) until he begins his next term on 1/3/2009.

by bschak 2006-12-14 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Little to No Precedent for Forcibly Unseating
Some would, some wouldn't. I was opposed the the attacks on Mike Catle, for example. I think your desire to attack in this case or that case is related to whether you have ever had someone close to you suffer a siilar illness. My mother had a brain aneryism, like Castle. She fully recovered and even went on to get a master's and has now been tecahing for fifteen years.

I am not attacking anyone, Republican or Democrat, who goes through this. If they resign, they resign. But that it up to him or her.
by Chris Bowers 2006-12-14 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Little to No Precedent for Forcibly Unseating

Not sure about that.  Arlen Specter had a brain tumor a few years back and missed a few months of work.  I don't remember any Dems calling for him to step down.  

I agree with Chris here.  Let's see how seriously hurt Johnson has been from this illness and see what he does.  

I know politics can be a crass business sometimes but right now it seems to me that our prayers and thoughts should be with Johnson and the rest of this can be left for another day.

by John Mills 2006-12-14 09:07AM | 0 recs
Senator Schiavo

I don't want to appear ghoulish, and I certainly wish Senator Johnson a speedy recovery, but as I read this I flashed on a Terry Schiavo situation, but reversed.  Suppose we're suddenly debating the life-support of Senator Schiavo, Democrat of somewhere?  It's a strange new world.

by drlimerick 2006-12-14 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Little to No Precedent for...

CNN.COM
POSTED: 1:36 p.m. EST, December 14, 2006
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/14/j ohnson.ill/index.html

[...]Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent and a brain surgeon, said a congenital arteriovenous malformation is a tangle of arteries and veins that have grown close together.

Johnson experienced difficulty speaking during an interview Wednesday, which Gupta said suggested that the malformation bled and put pressure on the brain that affects language as well as strength on the right side of the body.

Gupta said Johnson's recovery would depend on where the bleeding occurred.

"We are not talking about hours and days of recovery, but rather days and weeks, maybe even months at a minimum," Gupta said.

"When he gets his speech back to normal, when he gets his strength back to normal that can take a long time, probably require physical therapy," Gupta said. "We're talking about a long road here, regardless of where this hemorrhage occurred, but because it was in such high priced real estate it makes it even longer."

------------------------------

Okay, the bleeding occurred in an area that supports motor and speech functions. That is bad, but these areas may not be the same as the more important areas of consciousness. More importantly, since the surgery was described as "successful," the removal of this discrete vulnerable "tangle of arteries and veins" would suggest that no further complications are to be expected.

by blues 2006-12-14 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Little to No Precedent for Forcibly Unseating

Here is a related question.  Assuming that Johnson is alive but not voting in January and there is a 50-49 vote.  The usual rule is that once the organization of the Senate is set in January it remains that way even if there is a change of membership.  In the 50-50 '01 Senate there was a special deal reached so that it was not necessary to use the vote of the Vice President to break a tie on organization. (You can make a strong argument that since the Senate is in charge of its own ordering, and since the Vice President is not a Senator he has no vote in that question even if there is a 50-50 tie.)

Well anyway the resulting agreement had equal numbers of each party on each committee but gave the chair to the Republicans.  But the Democrats took the position that since this was just a 50-50 special deal if at any time during the term that should change then all bets were off and there would be another organization vote. A lot of Republicans thought that Lott should not have agreed to that, particularly after they lost a member, but he did and they did.

Somewhere I saw that even though the Senate was "close" this year the Democrats were not inclined to go with a deal like that in '01 that would permit a reshuffle mid term if there was a change.  I considered that was good news.

But I just heard Lawrence O'Donnell on Air America Radio saying that because of this Johnson thing the Republicans intended to refuse to permit ordering the Senate with a 50-49 majority unless the Democrats agreed to a deal like the one with the 50-50 Senate.  O'Donnell seemed to think that the Democrats would have no choice but to accept that demand, but I don't understand just why that should be.

What leverage would they really have?  Would the mere possibility that Johnson might not have fully recovered be enough reason for the Republican Noise Machine to force the Democratic majority to agree to a deal like the one where there was already a 50-50 Senate?  And if the Democrats did not give in what then.  Just no Senate at all or something?

by Fred in Vermont 2006-12-14 09:19AM | 0 recs
MSNBC Furthering R-Wing Agenda with this Story

When MSNBC had their story up about this, they neglected to label Karl Mundt and R while the Glass was marked out as a D so you had 1 D that held on when they maybe shouldn't have and some guy who could have been a D or an R.

by MNPundit 2006-12-14 09:42AM | 0 recs
Legally, it is first, a seat to vacate

Legally, the seat must first be vacated. This is a fairly common thing.

Let me speak, as a stroke survivor (and recently, in fact, my stroke was Feb. 2nd of this year, two of them.) Stroke is a horrible event - you feel so helpless. I found myself on the back porch crying.

Your mind knows what to do, but somehow things simply do not work. In fact, I suffered the same speech difficulty as did the senator - I collapsed after getting out of the shower with a cerebellar edema.

This aphasia  - an immediate loss of context - things don't make sense, even obvious things - for me, cleared up.  My husband is a researcher for the NIH and we had an experimental technique we tried - I quickly regained from mild dysarthria and moderate to severe aphasia. My stroke(s) were much worse than his. I could not walk afterward.

Based on this experience and on my husband's analysis of his speech patterns - sen. johnson will recover completely. His immediate aphasia is likely related to a radical event -

But his patterns reveal a secret that probably only we know. he's ok!

by heyAnita 2006-12-14 09:57AM | 0 recs
He did not have a stroke

So your diagnosis might not apply much, but I my sympathies go out to you and I hope you can live life to the fullest.

by MNPundit 2006-12-14 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: He did not have a stroke

It would be expected to have the same effects as a more typical stroke. For my money, his prospects look good.

by blues 2006-12-14 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: He did not have a stroke

We do the best we can in our fleeting time in this world. (I know, in the case of someone like me, it amounts to little. Screw it.)

by blues 2006-12-14 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Legally, it is first, a seat to vacate

First of all you are correct in saying that the seat cannot be filled unless it is vacant. After reading the US Consitution it appears that it is up to the individual states to determine what the term "vacancy" means. As of now, in this case, a vacancy will occur only if Sen Johnson dies or voluntarily resigns. However, it is within the realm of possibility that the South Dakota legislature could declare the seat vacant if Sen Johnson is unable to perform the duties of his office. Not very likely but possible.

As for the Senator's condition - He did not have a stroke. He had an intracranial arterial bleed. The severity of his condition can not be determined. However, arterial head bleeds are never a good thing. I suspect that the Senator is in tough shape and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. Only time will tell how far he can be rehabilitated. As of now he is still fighting for his life and needs our prayers.

by Duke Powell 2006-12-18 09:23PM | 0 recs
James Grimes
Rudin has Grimes wrong, I think. The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress says that Grimes resigned in 1869.
by Zzedar 2006-12-14 10:04AM | 0 recs
What about Election Requirement within 10 days?

Didn't you say that if the Sen. resigns, the state constitution requires an election in 10 days?

Why isn't the press chiming in about that one?

by MS 2006-12-14 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: What about Election Requirement within 10 days

That's the most extravagant misrepresentation of SD law yet. You probably couldn't get nominees and printed ballots within 10 days. According to §12-11-1 of SD statutes, the governor has 10 days after a vacancy opens to proclaim a special election (in situations where a special election is warranted). See this corrected post and subsequent comments. Summary: If Tim Johnson leaves office before 3/5/2008, Rounds will appoint a senator who will serve until 1/3/2009.

by bschak 2006-12-14 10:49AM | 0 recs
Historical Precedent for Keeping Seat

It's a pretty old one, but pretty famous. After Preston Brooks attacked Charles Sumner (of the famous "Bleeding Sumner" incident) and beat him half to death on the senate floor with his cane, Sumner kept his seat even though he did not attend the senate for the next three years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sum ner

Not legally identical, looks like the court re-elected him from the wikipedia article.  Still it's a good rhetorical tool in showing the historical similarities in the type of people who would try to remove a senator undemocratically (by cane or legal fiat).

by nwithers 2006-12-14 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Update

From Josh Marshall:

(December 14, 2006 -- 04:58 PM EST // link)

The office of Senator Tim Johnson has released the following at approximately 5pm ET:

Admiral John Eisold, Attending Physician of the United States Capitol said, "Senator Tim Johnson has continued to have an uncomplicated post-operative course. Specifically, he has been appropriately responsive to both word and touch. No further surgical intervention has been required."

by phillydem 2006-12-14 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Little to No Precedent for Forcibly Unseating

12-11-6.   No special election if appointed senator's term expires at normal time. No special election, to fill a vacancy, may be held if the term of office of the appointed senator expires in the month of January immediately following the next general election that would occur after the vacancy.

Ergo, na ga ha pen

by DaveB 2006-12-14 01:55PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------