Filling Vacancies in the US Senate

Filling Vacancies in the US Senate Senate seats become vacant for a variety of reasons the Senator dies in office, resigns in disgrace or resigns to assume another position, usually an elected or appointed government position.What happens when a Senator dies in office or resigns? How is the replacement handled?Procedures for electing Senators are outlined in Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, as later amended by paragraph 2 of the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment. Ratified in 1913, the 17th Amendment not only changed how Senators are to be elected (direct election by popular vote) but it also outlined how Senate vacancies are to be filled: When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. What Does This Mean in Practice? The U.S. Constitution grants the state legislatures the power to determine how U.S. Senators are to be replaced, including empowering the chief executive (the governor) to make these appointments.Some states require a special election to fill a vacancy. A few states require the governor to appoint a replacement of the same political party as the previous incumbent. Typically, a replacement holds office until the next scheduled statewide election.From the Congressional Research Service: Prevailing practice is for state governors to fill Senate vacancies by appointment, with the appointee serving until a special election has been held, at which time the appointment expires immediately. In the event a seat becomes vacant between the time of a general election and the expiration of the term, however, the appointee usually serves the balance of the term, until the next regularly scheduled general election. This practice originated with the constitutional provision that applied prior to the popular election of senators, under which governors were directed to make temporary appointments when state legislatures were in recess. It was intended to ensure continuity in a state’s Senate representation during the lengthy intervals between state legislative sessions. Exceptions or Where Governors Do Not Have Unlimited Powers: Alaska, Oregon, and Wisconsin do not allow the governor to make interim appointments; state laws require a special election to fill any Senate vacancy. Oklahoma also requires that Senate vacancies be filled by special elections, with an exception. If the vacancy occurs after March 1 of any even-numbered year and the term expires the following year, no special election is held; rather, the governor is required to appoint the candidate elected in the regular general election to fill the unexpired term. Arizona and Hawaii require the governor to fill Senate vacancies with a person affiliated with the same political party as the previous incumbent. Utah and Wyoming require the governor to select an interim senator from a list of three candidates proposed by the state central committee of the political party with which the previous incumbent was affiliated. In the event of a Senator’s death, his or her staff continue to be compensated for a period not exceeding 60 days (unless the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration determines that more time is needed to complete the closing of the office), performing duties under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate.

Pros and Cons of the Common Core State Standards

Pros and Cons of the Common Core State Standards The full implementation of the Common Core State Standards has come and gone. The true impact that they have on schools and education as a whole may still not be known for several years. One thing that is for sure is this shift to a national set of standards has been revolutionary and highly controversial. They have been highly debated and well discussed with a handful of states once committed to the standards having eventually recanted to go a different direction. As the media continues to evaluate the significance of the Common Core and data from Common Core states begin to pour in, you can bet the debate will rage on. Here, we examine several of the pros and cons of the Common Core Standards that will continue to lead the debate. PROS The Common Core State Standards are internationally benchmarked. This means that our standards will compare favorably to standards of other countries. This is positive in that the United States has dropped considerably in educational rankings over the last few decades. By having standards that are internationally benchmarked that ranking could begin to improve.The Common Core State Standards has allowed states to compare standardized test scores accurately. Up until the Common Core Standards, each state had their own set of standards and assessments. This has made it exceedingly difficult to compare one states results accurately with another state’s results. This is no longer the case with like standards and assessments for Common Core states who share the same assessments.The Common Core State Standards has decreased the costs states pay for test development, scoring, and reporting. This is because each state will no longer have to pay to have their unique tests to be develop ed. Each of the states that share the same standards can develop a like test to meet their needs and split costs. Currently, there are two majors Common Core-related testing consortia. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium is made up of fifteen states and PARCC consists of nine states. The Common Core Standards has increased the rigor in some classrooms and may better prepare students for college and global work success. This is probably the single biggest reason that the Common Core Standards were created. Higher education has long complained that more and more students need remediation at the beginning of college. The increased rigor should lead students to be more prepared for life after high school.The Common Core State Standards arguably has lead to the development of higher level thinking skills in our students. Students today often are tested on one skill at a time. The Common Core assessment will cover several skills within each question. This will ultimately lead to better problem-solving skills and increased reasoning.The Common Core State Standards assessments have given teachers a tool to monitor students’ progress throughout the year. The assessments will have optional pre-test and progress monitoring tools that teachers can use to find out what a student knows, where they are going, and to figure out a plan to get them where they need to be. This gives teachers an avenue to compare an individual student’s progress instead of one student against another. The Common Core State Standards assessments have been more authentic to a child’s learning experience. We will be able to see what all a student has learned across all curricula through the multi-assessment model. Students will no longer simply be allowed to come up with the right answer. Often times they must give an answer, state how they arrived at that conclusion, and defend it.The Common Core State Standards can benefit students with high mobility when they move from one Common Core state into another. States will now share the same set of standards. Students in Arkansas should be learning the same thing as a student in New York. This will benefit students whose families move continuously.The Common Core State Standards has given students stability thus allowing them to understand what is expected of them. This is important in that if a student understands what, and why they are learning something, there becomes a greater sense of purpose behind learning it.The Common Cor e State Standards has in many ways enhanced teacher collaboration and professional development. Teachers across the nation have been teaching the same curriculum. This allows teachers in opposite corners of the nation to share their best practices with each other and apply it. It also provides the opportunity for meaningful professional development as the education community is all on the same page. Finally, the standards have sparked a meaningful, nationwide conversation about the state of education in general. CONS The Common Core State Standards has been a tremendously difficult adjustment for students and teachers. It has been a difficult transition. It was not the way many teachers were used to teaching and not the way that many students were used to learning. There have not been instant results but instead, has been a slow process with many almost refusing to get on board.The Common Core State Standards has caused many outstanding teachers and administrators to pursue other career options. Many veteran teachers have retired rather than adjust the way they teach. The stress of getting their students to perform will likely continue to cause more teacher and administrator burnout.The Common Core State Standards are vague and broad. The standards are not particularly specific, but many states have been able to deconstruct or unwrap the standards making them more teacher friendly.The Common Core State Standards has forced younger students to learn more at a quicker pace than they ever have befor e. With the increased rigor and higher level thinking skills, early childhood programs have become more rigid. Pre-Kindergarten has become more important, and skills students used to learn in second grade are being taught in Kindergarten. The Common Core State Standards assessment does not have an equivalency test for students with special needs. Many states provide students with special needs a modified version of the test. There is no modified test for the Common Core Standards, meaning that 100% of a school’s population has their results reported for accountability purposes.The Common Core State Standards could be watered down when compared to a few states who had previously developed and adopted rigorous standards. The Common Core Standards were designed as a middle ground of the current state standards meaning that while many states’ standards were raised, there were some whose rigor decreased.The Common Core State Standards caused many textbooks to become obsolete. This was a pricey fix as many schools had to develop or purchase new curricula and materials that were aligned to the Common Core.The Common Core State Standards costs schools a lot of money to update the technology needed for the Common Core Standards Assessments. Most of the assessments are online. This created many issues for districts who had to purchase enough computers for all students to be assessed in a timely manner. The Common Core State Standards has led to an increased value on standardized test performance. High stakes testing is already a trending issue, and now that states are able to compare their performances against another accurately, the stakes have only become higher.The Common Core State Standards currently only have skills associated with English-Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics. There is currently no science, social studies, or art/music Common Core Standards. This leaves it up to individual states to have to develop their own set of standards and assessments for these topics.