Where the governor as chief executive appoints all cabinet members such as attorney general, secretary of state, etc. and other key positions like state-level prosecutors?
Where the governor as chief executive appoints all cabinet members such as attorney general, secretary of state, etc. and other key positions like state-level prosecutors?
Comments
Each state got to pick how it would be governed – that’s part of what makes them states. In theory, a state could certainly choose to organize itself this way.
Because it doesn’t work, as seen in America. The uneducated masses appoint a corrupt idiot as president, the president then appoints his friends to all important positions so they can exploit their positions to get richer.
States have their own constitutions and each state does things differently. And there are definitely tradeoffs in terms of checks and balances vs. efficiency. In many states there is support for having law enforcement in particular be accountable at as local a level as possible. So in my 15 years in MD there have been times when we’ve had a Republican State’s Attorney at the county level, a Democratic Attorney General and a Republican governor.
States are set up all over the map. One has a unicameral legislature. Another one gives the governor virtually no power, and the state house elects judges in short terms, so essentially there is only one institution in the balance of powers (the legislature).
The Constitution only requires one thing from the structure of the states. That they be “Republican” in nature, meaning that you vote to send representatives to institutions to engage the power of the state.
Beyond that, it’s up to the State Constitutions, and as long as the State Constitutions aren’t violating the federal Constitution, they can say whatever they want. And I mean whatever they want.
States are not just administrative districts for the federal government, they are technically sovereign. While it’s never been used, the states have the power to amend the constitution without the federal government’s input. Our federal government is a creature of the states, not the other way around.
Recognize that the states existed before the federal government. The organization of the federal government took its cues from the States (largely Virginia), not the other way around.
In colonial times, people elected almost all officials, and the shift to appointed officials at the state and local level happened gradually and unevenly.
Electing only the President at the federal level is the unusual case, and it probably has to do with the clumsiness of electing a nationwide office holder by electoral college. If the electoral college had to pick the Treasury Secretary, Attorney General and Secretary of State, it would create unnecessary chances for no candidate to win the election: And then what? We have the 12th Amendment now but that was bolted on after the electoral college failed in 1804.
States don’t have (and can’t have) electoral colleges. But they originally elected their offices on a most votes wins basis. Very few states require majorities to win statewide office. Where a majority is required, the requirement was usually put there to keep Black candidates from winning with 30% of the vote if the white vote got split.
Can we ask this the other way around? Should we elect the AG separately? Do it during the midterms?
As others have said, each state is it’s own entity with its own constitution and way of doing things. For example, in my state (MO) the governor and lieutenant governor don’t run for office as a unit – they run separate races. In the past we’ve had our top two posts filled from separate political parties.
And unlike the federal system where judicial candidates are selected by the president and confirmed by the senate, our top judicial positions are selected by the governor from a panel of 3 candidates vetted and presented to the governor by an independent judicial selection committee. This much lessens the likelihood of partisan influence.
States were formed separately and before the US federal government existed. In fact, the states created the US constitution which formed and bound (limited) the federal government’s authority and power. So there are necessarily differences between the states as they were formed by the local residents at different times.
While each state is cobstitutionally required to set itself up as a republic, they are given broad authority to organize as they see fit within that constraint. Most model themselves more or less loosely on the federal government, but many make their own tweaks to the formula. This is generally considered a good thing.