Lame Duck Lunacy

In an Op-Ed piece published at InTheLobby Richard A. Lee, the Communications Director of the Hall Institute of Public Policy - NJ argues that the lame-duck mischief that has taken place in our governments since the first Adams administration could be solved by having newly elected office holders sworn in the day after they are elected.

Our system of government is designed to protect our freedoms by limiting governmental power through checks and balances. Lame-duck periods are weakness in this system, as those leaving power are free to take reckless and unpopular actions
after they have been checked by the voters.

Lee argues that by having new officials sworn in the day after they are elected that they will have to be better prepared to take office during the election and that voters will have a better sense of the government that they will be choosing. While the objective of eliminating lame-duck abuses is desirable, the solution of eliminating a transition is unrealistic. It would create worse chaos than the current system and would prevent new administrations and legislatures from recruiting the best people to serve on their teams.

A better solution would be to add new checks and balances to the current system. Amend the constitution to require that legislation passed during a lame-duck period be signed into law or vetoed by the new Governor. Nominations made during the lame-duck period to positions requiring Senatorial consent should be ratified, or not, by the new Senate. Direct gubernatorial appointments should be made before election day.

Such a system would allow for a smoother transition than we are currently experiencing and better government than the solution Lee suggests. It would protect the electorate from the recklessness of those they fired.