Legislators Contemplate Their Own Demise

by Edith T. Carper

Congress continues to struggle with one of democracy’s major perplexities: finding a way to reconstitute itself if disaster kills or incapacitates large numbers of senators and representatives. It takes courage to contemplate one’s own demise.

The House took the most recent action 2 June, when members rejected H.J.Res 83, a proposal introduced by Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) that would have had each member choose two possible successors, one of whom would be appointed by the state’s governor when or if a majority of House members are killed or incapacitated, damaging Congress to the extent that it cannot function. “Elections are sacred,” Baird had said, “but so is representation.”

The House vote of 63-353 was well short of the two-thirds required to approve such an amendment. Congressional observers say the main purpose of the vote was to allow Republicans to carry out plans made earlier. In a compromise worked out between the parties, Democrats had agreed to support legislation that addressed replacing members killed in a disaster similar to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That bill, H.R. 2844, requires states to hold special elections within 45 days when more than 100 members die at one time. In a 306-97 vote, the House agreed to the legislation on 22 April. The resolution would have enabled the House to operate with appointed members until such special elections could be held.

The very real fear in Congress is that the loss of many members could leave the House or Senate without a quorum and thus unable to conduct business — even consideration of such wrenching decisions as authorizing military forces and approving spending. If only a few members survive, the legitimacy of their actions could well be questioned.

Baird had argued — with some passion — that the House could be paralyzed for months if hundreds of lawmakers are incapacitated or killed and the House has to wait for elections to restore a working majority. He said a terrorist strike could actually change our system of government. “[Terrorists could] change the political make-up of this body…We are unprepared to deal with that, and it is irresponsible.”

Members of Congress and scholars at local think-tanks such as the Brookings Institute have repeatedly expressed concern about the difficulties associated with assembling a quorum after a disaster. The Constitution requires House members to be replaced only through special elections, which take months to organize. Experts say such requirements guarantee inaction for a certain period of time, which would result in martial law for that same uncertain period.

Observers say Republicans generally oppose appointing members under any circumstances and are reluctant to amend the Constitution. The belief among Democrats, on the other hand, is that 45 days is too long to wait for new members to arrive, and governors must be able to appoint replacements in the interim.

 

---

Edith T. Carper is a special correspondent to IEEE-USA Today's Engineer and can be reached at todaysengineer@ieee.org.