This Thanksgiving morning, as I review some of the news, I find the rhetoric around this little Lt. Governor replacement issue quite entertaining as well as disturbing. In the news, there is annoyance over:
A) the mere existence of an LG
B) the candidate chosen to fill the vacancy
C) the "horrendous" cost of possible special elections to replace the domino’d open seat[s] caused by appointing a current legislator as Lt Governor
My, ahem, ‘favorite’ line may be about the governor, by moving to fill the vacancy "has chosen politics over seniors and children." [It was uttered by someone seeking statewide office]
As a duly elected Constitutional officer, the Lt. Governor does have certain responsibilities. A key one is a vote on the State Lands Commission, which would have jurisdiction over key oil drilling policy. The bottom line should be is that if the people of California through their Constitution have provided or allowed for the existence of a Lt Guv, and thus vote one into office, then it’s the obligation of the Governor and the Legislature to appoint and confirm a replacement as a vacancy occurs…similarly as elections are soon required when any legislative seat opens up.
**There is more – click the link**