A Strange History of Appointed Senators

Sen. Luther Strange (R-AL)

Honestly, every time I write an article that's going to publish the following morning at this point, I wonder if it will be A) still relevant, considering the imbecile running the country or B) whether we'll even have a country to begin with or if World War III broke out because someone let Trump stay up past his bedtime.  The president is just embarrassingly awful at this point-that impeachment isn't on the table for sheer mental incompetence is beyond me.  But assuming we're all still alive, I suppose we can touch on a different topic this morning related to politics, and that's the subject of appointed senators.

Today in Alabama, the Republican Party is conducting a runoff to fill the remainder of the term of Attorney General Sessions.  Pitted against each other are Sen. Luther Strange, the favorite of not only the Republican establishment but the president himself.  A former Attorney General, Strange has struggled with the more bombastic wing of his party (a major problem in Alabama), due to his connections to disgraced former Gov. Robert Bentley, who was forced to resign and accept a plea agreement due to his campaign finance improprieties.  Competing against Strange for the nomination is one of the most controversial figures in Republican politics today (a growing club, but still) former Chief Justice Roy Moore, most famous for his refusal to take down a Ten Commandments monument and for his refusal to issue gay marriage licenses even though it was legal for same-sex couples to wed in Alabama.

I could write an article about the strange contrast between the two, how Moore could make Ted Cruz look like Bob Corker if he's in the Senate, and how the Republican Party's constant enabling of the Alt-Right has now led to a man who thinks Mitch McConnell is too moderate to be Senate Leader.  But I'm not going to do that because it's too depressing-we have to deal with enough worry about nuclear war that feels like a foregone conclusion if Trump stays in office, not a theoretical possibility.  Instead I'm going to focus on three facts about appointed senators, and why Strange's likely loss tonight is so bizarre.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI)

1. Appointed Senators Usually Avoid Primaries

We'll start out with the first strange aspect of this race, that the primary itself is happening at all.  Looking at the past twenty years, 21 senators (plus Strange) have served in the US Senate, most (but not all) replacing a member of their own party (the only cases where this wasn't true were Lautenberg/Chiesa in New Jersey and Coverdell/Miller in Georgia).  As a result, there were clearly benches in these states, similar to Alabama, that the incumbent senator would have to take on, but most of them were granted one of the major advantages of incumbency: a largely cleared primary.

Before the Strange/Moore race, the only appointed senators in the past twenty years to endure tough primaries were Michael Bennet (D-CO) in 2010 and Brian Schatz (D-HI) in 2014.  In both cases, they were surprise choices for the nomination to begin with, as the governors were expected to choose someone else.  In Bennet's case, he was largely unknown in national circles, with most assuming that Gov. Ritter would pick someone like then-Mayor John Hickenlooper, House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, or Reps. John Salazar or Ed Perlmutter.  Bennet, who had never held elected office until that point, was considered an "accidental" senator, potentially even a placeholder until he eventually stood for a full term, and was challenged by Romanoff.  The same could be said for Brian Schatz, who was the Lieutenant Governor, but was considered an underdog against the late Sen. Daniel Inouye's protegee, Rep. Colleen Hanabusa.  His selection led Hanabusa to primary him for a promotion.

If Strange wants some comfort, both candidates (Schatz in particular) were considered relative underdogs heading into Election Day.  Bennet had a slight lead in the polls, but 2010 was turning out to be an unusual election for frontrunners (it turned out to be the Republican Primary in Colorado where the upstart bested the establishment pick), and Schatz was behind Hanabusa right up until the ballots started being cast.  Both almost certainly couldn't have won in an open primary, but the power of incumbency helped them, something that has largely staved off competition against even appointed incumbents in the past.

In fact, you have to go past twenty years ago, to 1996, to find an example of an appointed incumbent US Senator who lost a primary.  Lt. Governor Sheila Frahm was seen by many as a moderate alternative to Bob Dole, despite both being devoted Republicans, which was why Gov. Bill Graves chose her.  Rep. Sam Brownback, an ambitious and very conservative member of the House, saw an opportunity and primaried Frahm, successfully besting her in a blowout (Brownback won by 13-points).  In many ways this mirrors the Alabama race, as Frahm was a friend of the governor and perhaps not as conservative as the state as a whole, but it's bizarre that it's taken 21 years for this to be duplicated since the far-right challenger has become such a consistent trope for the GOP.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

2. Appointed Senators Usually Win

Not only do appointed senators usually win their primaries, by-and-large they also win the general election.  Of the 21 senators appointed that aren't Luther Strange, a dozen of them competed in the general election, with all but one of them winning the seat outright.

This is largely because, as I mentioned, most of these senators succeeded someone from their own party.  The one-party makeup of places like Hawaii, New York, Wyoming, and South Carolina means that if you have the right letter behind your name in the general, by-and-large you're going to win reelection.  This isn't always the case, though, as some people did have competitive elections to win a full or completed term.  Lisa Murkowski in 2004 was seen as the underdog for most of the race until George W. Bush helped her over the finish line, while Dean Heller's 2012 race was decided by less than two points.  However, the only time that an appointed senator has lost a general election in twenty years would be Jean Carnahan in Missouri.  A widow whose husband died in a plane accident and then was elected even though he'd died, she hadn't read her race well (she voted against her husband's opponent John Ashcroft, which didn't sit well with Show-Me State voters), but even though she'd never run for political office before, was in a bad year for Democrats, and had made serious missteps in her campaign, she still only lost by less than two points, a miniscule margin.

This is all to say that once he decided to run, it was very likely that Strange was going to win the election and any other outcome is unusual-his struggle in the primary shouldn't necessarily spell doubts about his ability in the general should he get there.

Sen. Dean Barkley (I-MT)

3. Appointed Senators Don't Frequently Run

That decision to run, though, was one that really was a coin toss as appointed senators are really a 50/50 shot for running for a full-term in recent history.  Despite the allure of serving in the world's most exclusive club and the incredible power and prestige of achieving most people's political dream, the recent trend has been for senators not to stand for a full-term, instead going back to the quiet of their lives, a political footnote for those who spend hours pouring over past Roll Call votes (it can't just be me).

Nine of the last 22 appointed senators (41%, well above the average of politicians who seek reelection in a given year) declined the opportunity to run for a full/complete term.  Admittedly some of these were strange cases.  John Walsh (D-MT), did run, but then dropped out after plagiarism charges were levied against him (remember when plagiarism was considered a political scandal?!?) while Dean Barkley (I-MN) wasn't able to run for reelection as he was appointed after the election had taken place (he did run for the same seat six years later, though).  However, many senators simply decline a run, and age rarely has anything to do with it (George LeMieux and Carte Goodwin were the youngest members of the Senate when they were first appointed).

Frequently they are filling in for a senator who is clearly coming later, oftentimes a governor who doesn't want to pull a Wendell Anderson and appoint himself, but clearly wants to extend his time in office.  This was the case for both LeMieux and Goodwin, who stood aside for the men who appointed them.  Other senators look at this as a career cap of sorts, like Roland Burris and Paul Kirk, both longtime members of their parties who let younger candidates run for office behind them.  And in some cases the governor, not wanting to offend any of the aspiring candidates for the office, simply picks someone he knows won't run (this was the case with Mo Cowan, and arguably Jeff Chiesa in New Jersey).

Weirdly it's here that the party out-of-power tends to gain the advantage.  Roland Burris, Paul Kirk, and Dean Barkley were succeeded by men of a different party than those they took over for, while Jeff Chiesa was a Republican who declined seeking a full-term, and then watched his seat go to the Democrats.  One could argue that Alabama Republicans, by not nominating Strange for a full-term are risking doing the same thing this year, as it's difficult to see Strange losing to US Attorney Doug Jones, but theoretically possible to picture Jones besting Roy Moore.

So regardless of tonight's outcome, this could be an unusual turn-of-events.  It could also mean Roy Moore, one of the worst people in politics, is about to become a senator, though that's not for certain, so please if you're a Democrat make sure you're registered to vote for the December special election.