Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 September 14
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 13 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 15 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
September 14
editHow to become lieutenant governor of California?
editI'm working on List of Governors of California and an interesting question has come up. First, please see the official historical list of officeholders.
Up til 1887, whenever there was a vacancy in the office of lieutenant governor, the senate would quickly elect a president of the senate, who would act as lieutenant governor. In the list, these (Broderick, Quinn, de la Guerra, Irwin, White) are noted as 'acting'.
But something changed between 1887 and 1895 (and possibly 1916; getting to that in a moment). On October 24, 1895, Spencer Millard died. The official list shows that on October 25, William Jeter became lieutenant governor. Not acting; full office.
Likewise, on February 28, 1916, John Eshleman died. William Stephens was nominated as his replacement by Governor Hiram Bingham. I have contemporary press saying just this. So by 1916, the process was no longer 'senate chooses a president who acts as lieutenant governor' and it had become 'governor nominates replacement to fill vacancy'. Furthermore, when Bingham resigns and Stephens becomes governor, the official list notes that the position became vacant - because, well, it was. There was no lieutenant governor. Which continues to show that there was no automatic or quick process as there used to be.
So my two questions are: first, does anyone have any idea when or why this process changed? Second, any idea who at the state I would email with this question? I thought about the office of lieutenant governor but that seems like it'd get lost in the crowd. --Golbez (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- According to the Constitution of California, article V, section 5(b): [1] "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, or Attorney General, or on the State Board of Equalization, the Governor shall nominate a person to fill the vacancy who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority of the membership of the Senate and a majority of the membership of the Assembly and who shall hold office for the balance of the unexpired term. In the event the nominee is neither confirmed nor refused confirmation by both the Senate and the Assembly within 90 days of the submission of the nomination, the nominee shall take office as if he or she had been confirmed by a majority of the Senate and Assembly; provided, that if such 90-day period ends during a recess of the Legislature, the period shall be extended until the sixth day following the day on which the Legislature reconvenes." While the original California Constitution may have been adopted in 1849, a new constitution was adopted in 1879. That would fit with the changes in L.G. nomination processes. --Jayron32 14:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's possible one of the post 1879 amendments (of which there were many) dealt with the question of lieutenant governor vacancy. You might want to contact the California State Archives, I've found them helpful in the past. Or the Secretary of State of California. Or even the LG's office itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Almost, and I'd actually forgotten about the new constitution, but that still leaves Stephen M. White, who is marked as acting from 1887 to 1891? I found a bio that states he was president pro tempore and became acting lt gov, which jives with how other people became acting lieutenant governor... but it doesn't jive with the 1879 constitution, which would have taken effect by then. On the other hand, it's entirely possible that "acting" on the official list is an error, as the California Blue Book from 1915 has no mention of acting status for him but does mention it for de la Guerra, et. al. I think I need to just email the secretary of state. --Golbez (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's also helpful to remember that until the mid-20th century, the position of the vice president and analogous positions in state government was "no big deal" until and unless the #1 guy ceased to have a pulse, and it's still that way in a lot of states. The LG probably just presided over the Senate, and probably wasn't even in Sacramento the rest of the year unless he happened to live there. So the Senate president pro tem was acting lieutenant governor, but it likely was a distinction without a difference, since it was the same guy, doing the job he would have done anyway with no elected LG in place.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Theodore Roosevelt was once a powerful governor till his "friends" encouraged him to jump on the steppingstone to oblivion. Wasn't all that bad, in the end, but still a risky move. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Most VPs up to Nixon and post the 12th Amendment were not presidential fodder. TR was an exception in that his ambition coincided with Thomas C. Platt's desire to find a nice way to make it clear to him he would not be renominated as governor. Combine that with a somewhat wacko pseudo-anarchist with a thing about McKinley (Czolgosz) and there you are.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Also, TR didn't need very much convincing to run. He was told all he had to do to avoid being nominated (as he was protesting he didn't want to be) was tell the convention in Philadelphia he would not accept the nomination. He showed up instead dressed as Rough Rider, if I recall, "that's a candidate's hat".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Speaking of advisors to the Governor of New York and people who were shot during early September musical celebrations and lingered about a week before making the assassination official, that's some odd timing. Apparently not an anarchist's bullet this time, just the gangs of New York (the older new kind, not the newer old kind). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just for posterity, I'm declaring the 2016 election early: Clinton and Cuomo, henceforth to be addressed as The New C+C Music Factory. Bet on it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Theodore Roosevelt was once a powerful governor till his "friends" encouraged him to jump on the steppingstone to oblivion. Wasn't all that bad, in the end, but still a risky move. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's also helpful to remember that until the mid-20th century, the position of the vice president and analogous positions in state government was "no big deal" until and unless the #1 guy ceased to have a pulse, and it's still that way in a lot of states. The LG probably just presided over the Senate, and probably wasn't even in Sacramento the rest of the year unless he happened to live there. So the Senate president pro tem was acting lieutenant governor, but it likely was a distinction without a difference, since it was the same guy, doing the job he would have done anyway with no elected LG in place.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Almost, and I'd actually forgotten about the new constitution, but that still leaves Stephen M. White, who is marked as acting from 1887 to 1891? I found a bio that states he was president pro tempore and became acting lt gov, which jives with how other people became acting lieutenant governor... but it doesn't jive with the 1879 constitution, which would have taken effect by then. On the other hand, it's entirely possible that "acting" on the official list is an error, as the California Blue Book from 1915 has no mention of acting status for him but does mention it for de la Guerra, et. al. I think I need to just email the secretary of state. --Golbez (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)