I hadn’t planned to write about Senator Dianne Feinstein today, but the news of her death overnight made me change my plans.
Senator Feinstein was a fixture in Washington politics for 30 years and had been equally powerful in her home city of San Francisco before that. She was president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1978, when a former city supervisor shot and killed the city’s Mayor, George Moscone, and Supervisor Harvey Milk. She was appointed to the position of Mayor after these assassinations and continued to lead the city through the 1980s.
After being defeated in a run for governor of California in 1990, she was successful in her bid for a seat in the United States Senate in 1992. She held that seat until she died last night. She actually cast her last vote Thursday morning – casting a procedural vote for short-term government funding.
Among her most significant accomplishments was the 1994 passage of the Assault Weapons Ban – which, of course, expired in 2004. In 2013, she was co-sponsor of a new ban on specific assault weapons in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
She was a pioneer for women’s rights in many significant ways and supported moderate Democratic Party positions on most important issues that came before the Senate.
Unfortunately, her legacy was damaged by the health problems that plagued her in recent years. She was 90, after all – an age attained by less than 5% of the American population. She experienced memory problems and experienced several debilitating illnesses and falls – including shingled (with complications) in early 2023 and a fall in August.
Politically, her death gives California Governor Gavin Newsom (a Democrat) the opportunity to appoint a replacement for the rest of her term, which was set to end in January 2025. She had already announced that she would not run again, and a primary election to begin the process of filling her seat is scheduled for March 2024. Newsom will appoint another Democrat to fill her seat – probably within a couple of weeks.
There’s a lot of pressure on Newsom over his decision to fill this seat. When VP Harris resigned her seat to assume her new job in 2020, Newsom appointed then-Secretary of State for California, Alex Padilla, to fill the seat for the last two years of Harris’s term. He then ran again – and won – in the 2022 midterm election. After that appointment, Newsom pledged to appoint a Black woman to the Senate if Feinstein’s seat became vacant. He will face pressure to make good on this challenge.
The pundits are speculating about two options Newson faces – appointing a “caretaker” who will be expected to fill the seat until the “real” candidates run in 2024. Current San Francisco Mayor London Breed, a Black woman, is among those whose names are being discussed for this caretake position. People are also throwing around names like Oprah Winfrey.
Or he could appoint one of the candidates running in the primary that is already underway to fill Feinstein’s seat – one of whom, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, is Black. The other declared candidates at this point are Representatives Katie Porter and Adam Schiff. Newsome previously said he would follow this path because he felt it would unfairly give that person a leg up in the race against the other candidates.
He could also appoint himself, although this seems unlikely.
This open seat, coming at this time of looming government shutdown, Senate Democrats will be one vote shy of their existing majority – currently 51-49. With a majority of 50-49, their majority position is still safe, but it is weaker.
Senator Feinstein’s absence will also impact the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she held the tie-breaking vote. One reason she did not resign earlier was a common belief among Democrats that Republicans would filibuster her replacement on the committee, deadlocking its membership and limiting Democrats’ effort to process judicial nominations. Senate Republicans had already blocked a Democratic request earlier in the year, while Feinstein was on a lengthy hiatus from the Senate due to health problems, to temporarily swap in another Democratic senator to fill her Judiciary seat. So Feinstein returned to Washington, probably sooner than may have been medically advisable, to provide the tie-breaking vote in support of President Biden’s nominees for judgeships. Senior Senate Republicans were signaling during the day today that there won’t be a fight over filling the vacant committee seats caused by the Senator’s death.
The issue of our aging political class is becoming an increasing problem. People are living longer – and are living as healthy people longer – but there is no logical reason why the two likely nominees for the 2024 presidential election are older than me, for God’s sake. And I’ve been retired for 11 years. I’m healthy and still have most of my marbles, but I know I couldn’t handle what the presidency requires. A total of 35 members of the Senate are over 70 (4 of these are over 80) and 102 members of the House are over 70 (15 of these are over 80).
People often call for term limits to keep the country from becoming a gerontocracy, but I don’t support that. Here’s why:
An elected official can be term-limited – by his constituency. If my member of Congress is doing a good job after years in office, why should I sacrifice him/her because other people think “too old?”
If we term-limit members of the House or Senate, the influence of unelected (and unknown) lobbyists and staff members will increase enormously. Newcomers to Congress will be educated and influenced by people we know nothing about.
I’ll give you an example. The chief of staff for Senator John Fetterman is a Capitol Hill veteran named Adam Jentleson, who worked for United States Senator Harry Reid (leader of the Senate Democrats) from 2010-2016. He knows the ins and outs of Capitol Hill and is invaluable to a newby Senator – particularly one who has faced health challenges like Fetterman has. I think Jentleson is, overall, a good guy. But nefarious people can weasel their way in, also, and the public would never know it. The more newcomers there are, the more influential unknown staff will be
Lobbyists are a vital source of information for elected officials. When a member of Congress has to vote on funding for a branch of the military, for example, they rely, not only on what the Defense Department needs or wants (always a lot), but also on information from other sources that might inject some nuance into the discussion. Seasons legislators can separate the wheat from the chaff; newbies, not so much. And just like with the staffers – the public doesn’t know who the lobbyists are. And they don’t change just because a new person is in office; the lobbyists just shift their attention from the former guy to the new guy. So electing a new guy doesn’t solve the problem.
So, I’m not sure what the solution is. This is one of many issues that elected officials need to think about.
Retire and go play with your grandchildren, people!
She was a terrific example for women across the country. Don't know about her replacement, but I tend to agree with you on term limits, though I think if you're 75 or older, you should think seriously about finding a hobby rather than die in the chamber. After being in office for 15 years or so, congressional folks should perhaps begin looking around and educating good people moving up the ladder. Just a thought.
I'd vote for you for president.