In a post “earlier this week”:https://themonkeycage.org/2009/05/clearing_the_field_in_pennsylv_1.html, I suggested that one way the Democratic Party might be able to get a few more votes out of Senator Specter over the next year would be if he had to face a challenger on his left in the 2010 Democratic Senate Primary in Pennsylvania. Apparently, Senate Democrats have gone one better: Politico is “now reporting”:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22180.html that Specter will only find out if he gets to keep his seniority (in terms of preference for sub-committee chairmanships) _after_ the 2010 election cycle.
With this in mind, I’d like to throw out three questions to readers of The Monkey Cage, especially those of you who work on legislative politics:
bq. 1) Has anyone ever heard of this happening before in the US Congress (or any other national legislature for that matter)? (And by “this”, we can expand the category beyond just party switchers to encompass any sitting member of the legislature being asked to essentially demonstrate his or her loyalty to the party before the benefits of seniority are either bestowed or withheld at some later date.)
bq. 2) If Specter is unhappy with the arrangement, does he really have any options left at this point?
bq. 3) Do we expect that this move will ultimately help or hurt the Democratic Party in terms of getting Specter to vote with the party over the next year? What about in a potential 2010-2016 term?