The Blago affair points out the ethical mine field of having a governor appoint an individual to an empty seat. This is a practice that should just go away. Empty seats should be filled by a special election.

One idea I've thought about is for each state to treat a U.S. Senator special election like a big presidential appointment - in other words, the governor appoints someone to fill the post, and then that person is ratified by the State Senate.

That would save the cost of a special election and would theoretically help tamp down abuse of power and corruption. Of course, a corrupt governor could always appoint a corrupt senator, and then a corrupt legislature could confirm him. But the only way to avoid all those people being corrupt is for us to not vote corrupt people into office... which doesn't seem like it's going to go away anytime soon.

Just for the record -- Paterson was Lt. Gov. in part *because* he was seen as the most likely person to succeed HRC if she, as appeared likely, became the Dem. nominee. If/when Clinton gave up her seat, Spitzer would appoint Paterson to it. (Not a bad appointment; Paterson was well-respected, long term Senate minority leader.) Of course, the Spitzer "matter" and Paterson's taking over as Gov was NOT a part of this planning!

As a result, as soon as it looked like Clinton might be giving up her seat, the first question that was raised was whether, after all, Paterson would appoint himself -- and he stated almost immediately that he would not. Lots of reasons - chief among them being that NY has no provision for replacing the Lt. Gov, so if he were to take over the Majority leader of the Senate would become Governor. Currently, that's a Republican but even when it becomes a Dem. in Jan, the individual will be relatively new to leadership and not anyone ever elected to statewide office.

In short, it really wouldn't be an outlandish thing for Paterson to do - since he was considered by many to be the logical person to be appointed - but it won't be happening.

In general, appointments by the Gov. lead to some very good people being in office. Perhaps for Senate seat, however, it might be more appropriate for it to be the legislature. Immediate special elections wouldn't be too workable and would, I think, lead to different abuses ----- although in this particular case (IL), one may well be the best and perhaps only solution.

NOT AT ALL the "first blind person in the Senate."

It might be said parenthetically that metaphorical blindness has never been in short supply there.

As far as I know, the first physically blind (sightless) Senator was Thomas Gore of Oklahoma, a hundred years ago. He was an uncle, I think, of the author Gore Vidal; was accused in some kind of sexual scandal; might also have been a relation of the Tennessee Gore family.

Another blind Senator was Thomas Schall from Minnesota, whose election in the Prohibition era was clouded by accusations that he had extorted money from bootleggers for his campaign funding, in exchange for "protection" from federal prosecution. Schall's admission to the Senate was help up for over a year, but he successfully passed the blame off on his campaign manager, who was sent to federal prison. One historian quotes a Minnesota newspaper as describing Senator Schall's record as that of a "mountebank extraordinary and contortionist plenipotentiary"---and that was a paper which SUPPORTED him.

These two somewhat dubious examples prove nothing except that Governor Paterson wouldn't be the first severely visually impaired Senator. Anyway, it is more important that a Senator's brain be working than that his or her eyes be functioning.
And a smart politician knows better than to arrange his or her own elevation to the Senate. Except in utterly corrupt, boss-controlled states, that self-serving stratagem has prematurely ended many an American political career. The voters don't like it.