The public expresses significant concern regarding the influence of governors in the legislative process, highlighting fears of political bias, misuse of veto power, and the erosion of democratic principles. There's a cited lack of clarity surrounding governors' powers, as well as distrust in media portrayals of the political landscape, contributing to a mixed sentiment yet leaning negative overall.

State Governors

State Legislators

Central Government

I haven’t been through the full process but legislative assembly staff aren’t appointed under the public service act so it doesn’t have to follow the same rigid process. 
I did apply once and basically got called and it felt like I got offered a job no interview. The minister the post it ion would have been supporting had a horrible reputation though so I said my situation changed and I was no longer interested.

rave-runnnnner

[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

Violators will be fed to the bear.

---

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

In addition to the response by u/BrownBoyBrock, both examples you give in the title of this post are examples of positions that have changed tremendously in importance over time. 

Chief Justice was the head of what was initially the least powerful branch of the federal government. It was (and is still, technically) the only branch dependent on the other branches. At the time, it was difficult work. John Jay had a relatively light workload and did a tremendous amount of other work for the federal government, largely at the behest of Washington, but in general the life of a Supreme Court justice was pretty miserable. They travelled the country, were underpaid, and had to sit for relatively low level cases for the most part. And even Chief Justice was not a particularly influential position. As Governor of New York, John Jay could gain much more fame/regard and the position had much greater potential to become President or otherwise move to a more powerful position.

That is to say, at the time, Governor of New York would have been considered a greater role than Chief Justice. 

Same pretty much for Vice President - at the time of Calhoun, Vice President was not a springboard to the presidency, but was instead a position of little regard or power. This was in the process of changing around that time, but it wasn’t until the 20th century even that the VP became a position of note. So again, Senator would have actually been the more influential, “greater,” position.

Edit to add: there’s more to Calhoun’s decision to leave the Vice Presidency as well, but I decided to just focus on how the influence of the position has changed.

WizardofEgo

Back then, nationalism wasn’t a huge thing. People had more pride over being Virginian than being American. That’s why you saw politicians in Congress go back to being like State Senate Leaders. 

Now, politics and culture has become so nationalized that we see ourselves more as Americans (although we still see state pride like Texans).
Also, being a Federal politician is much more lucrative today. You can serve 2 terms in the Senate and get great benefits and high publicity. Then step down and take a high paying Lobbyist job in DC. 

Because of these factors, you rarely see Federal politicans go back to their state and take less prominent roles.

BrownBoyBrock

Buffalo’s congressman resigned to run a theatre. Its mayor resigned to run Off Track Betting. Anything is possible.

wrenvoltaire

Legally there's nothing against it from happening in modern times. It would be unprecedented in modern times for someone from the Federal level to step down to the state level. But in these unprecedented times, anything is possible. 

Shoot, I genuinely think Trump might consider trying to become a Supreme Court Justice just because it's a lifetime position with unlimited perks.

flying87

The Senate was far more important to the balance of powers before the 17th amendment.  Also, the VP was far less important than it is today.

Intrepid_Fox-237

The premise frames this as a shift in the perceived prestige of political offices. The real shift is in the function of the state itself.

You're comparing positions on a national board of directors (federal government) with those of a regional branch manager (state government). In the 18th and 19th centuries, the "regional branches" had far more autonomy because the "corporation" itself (the national capitalist economy) was less integrated.

Today, politics at all levels is primarily the administration of a single, highly centralized economic and social system. A governor or senator isn't exercising a different kind of power, but a subordinate level of the same power: managing the conditions for capital. One doesn't voluntarily leave the boardroom to manage the Midwest franchise unless it's a strategic move to run for CEO later.

striped_shade

Not in current system though legislation could fix this. No legislator may serve consecutive terms in the se legislative body.

jdash54

Speaking of Jay's resignation from the court... I don't think so.  Mostly because today, Justices are, you know.... judges.  Politicians, while they are most often legally trained, are typically not judges.

This gives an idea of how much what a "judge" is has evolved over time.  Prior to the revolution, judges were seen as much as anything else as "magistrates" whose authority covered *extremely* broad areas and had ill-defined powers.  A good example of this (although it was obviously after the revolution) was Washington sending the chief justice of the supreme court, John Jay, to negotiate an important treaty with Great Britain.  This of course could never happen now.

The revolution started a trend that made judges more into what they are now... legal experts whose authority is based (at least theoretically) 100% on law.  Although it should be noted that old habits died hard, and the change was a process that took a long time to happen.

edit:  source:  Gordon Wood, *The Radicalism of the American Revolution*

MrMelkor

I think it's questionable if they were taking lesser positions, I mean it's unlikely that they viewed the offices as lesser or they wouldn't have resigned to take the other job.  A Supreme Court justice doesn't get to set any policy, they only rule on legal matters.  Especially back then when there were very few Federal laws, a justice on the Supreme Court rarely had a lot of impact.  It's also questionable if VP is a more important job than a Senator.  The VP basically has almost no impact on anything other than breaking ties in the Senate.

Searching4Buddha

Ben Sasse resigned from the Senate in 2023 to become president of the University of Florida.

bl1y

Matthew Colangelo was a senior official at DOJ before taking a senior counsel position for the Manhattan DA. I only know this because a reddit commenter was super upset by the "lawfare conspiracy" to hold Trump accountable for his criminal acts.

bruce_cockburn

What would be legally required?  For that action to constitute a federal crime, which while this is written very vaguely, I'm having trouble coming up with a situation in which it would.

ZealousidealHeron4

The federal government DOJ could charge a state governor for federal crimes. A state governor does not enjoy executive immunity similar to the presidency. Otherwise it would fall to the state itself to charge a governor for criminal acts not sanctioned by the state's constitution as well as recall or impeach the governor as provides by the state constitution.


A good example of this would be former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. The federal government arrested him for charges related to conspiring to sell the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama when the latter won the presidency while at the same time Blagojevich faced impeachment by the state for the same charges.

JOliverScott

The only thing I can think of would be a governor interfering with ICE by sheltering people with deportation orders in the governor’s mansion (perhaps hidden behind a bookcase for maximum effect). That is technically a federal crime for which a governor could be arrested, but I think it’s more likely the official X account turns their meme game up to 11 than any law enforcement action is taken against the governor. 

There have been a total of 11 governors who have been arrested and sent to prison. All of them were busted for corruption involving personal enrichment, so it’s pretty hard for me to imagine a governor being arrested for something involving the official duties of his or her office.

MSK165

tvan184

Suspension of habius. Lincoln did it during the Civil War and jailed almost the entire Virginia legislation. No one of Lincoln's brightest moments. 

It's happened before and their precedent.

that1rowdyracer

With the current President and DOJ, it would seem just the idea that they want to put a state government in prison is enough to do so.

MuttJunior

This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:

* Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.

* Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.

* Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.

* Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.**

If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!**


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*

That is a state level election, so the state can establish how those posts are filled. 

GhostOfJamesStrang

The answer is as simple as: each state has their own constitution. 

If you want to know what decisions lead up to the state choosing to organize their executive branch like this, you would have to look at the history for the state in question.

TheBimpo

Well, you’re not going to believe this but the original plan in the US federal constitution was for the presidential runner-up to be made vice president I.e: the guy from the other party who just lost. The flaws in that system ought to be a little self-evident.

As for the states, sometimes they have separate elections for governor and lt governor, sometimes they could have some elaborate method of succession.

AdrianArmbruster

Some states have the governor and lieutenant governor as the same election, so two candidates have to run together. Obviously in practice this almost always results in them being the same party, but it’s not a requirement anywhere.

The states that you notice where they have differing parties are states that don’t require a ticket. i.e. states where the elections are separate instead of one.

Some states, like mine, don’t have a lieutenant governor at all.

But yes, every state has its own constitution and laws regarding their own government.

BankManager69420

In California, they’re elected separately so it’s possible for them to be from different parties.

TheLizardKing89

Deppends on the state but if your governor and lt governor elections are seperate that can happen especially if they are not in the same year

Jazzlike-Equipment45

Those states have separate elections for the two offices. The nature of those elections are set in the particular state's constitution.

dcgrey

Besides the states, there is nothing preventing the US president and Vice President from being in different parties. It has happened. It's just not a likely thing these days.

[deleted]

They’re both elected offices.  Voters might choose to elect candidates of different parties. Why would they need to be the same party?

Dio_Yuji

States have their own constitutions, their constitution will dictate their government structure.  The only real caveat federally speaking is that it must be a republican form of government.

machagogo

Yes, there are different state laws. States’ internal political composition is largely determined by their own constitutions. 

Of the 50 states, only 45 even have lieutenant governors (though 1 more state will be adding the office in 2026). In 26 states, the governor and lieutenant governor are elected as a party ticket. This means voters cast a single vote for both offices, so the winning “running mates” will be from the same party. In 17 states mostly in the South and West, the lieutenant governor is elected separately from the governor, so the offices can be held by politicians from different parties. In 2 states, the lieutenant governor is a member of the state senate and chosen by that body. 

Of the 26 states in which the governor and lieutenant governor form a ticket, 20 allow the candidates for governor to choose their running mates. This is most similar to the system used for choosing running mate in the federal system. The other 6 have separate nominating processes for the two offices; this is common in the Northeast. This process can result in a governor being stuck with an incompatible lieutenant governor. 

The reason why some states directly elect the lieutenant governor is ostensibly to give the voters more control. Unlike the federal government, which has a single independently elected executive official (the president), nearly all states have additional elected executive officials. Notably, 43 states have elected attorneys general. (In 5 states the attorney general is appointed by the governor which is analogous to the federal system; in 1 state the attorney general is elected by the state legislature and in 1 state chosen by the state Supreme Court.) And the trend over time has been to give the voters more power.

abbot_x

in Texas where I live they are elected separately. As in, it is entirely possible to vote for the Democratic governor and Republican lieutenant governor. I don't know why someone would do this (and indeed in reality both posts are currently held by Republicans) but it's possible.

DOMSdeluise

Keep in mind the duties and responsibilities of Governors and Lt Governors varies considerably from state to state.

Penguin_Life_Now

States have their own constitutions and greatly very between states thus their government systems will vary.

The United States is just that, a union of semi-sovereign states within an over-government. We are not just a unitary government with provinces. Imagine the European Union with 220 years of scope and power growth.

JudgeWhoOverrules

As others mentioned, each state has their own state constitution. In North Carolina, there are 10 elected positions in the Executive branch, which is called the Council of State.

WashuOtaku

States have their own constitutions and can set up their governments however they want, apart from the nebulous requirement that they be "republican."

Not every state even has a Lieutenant Governor. In West Virginia and Tennessee, it's just the title of the leader of the state senate.

StupidLemonEater

States have different laws, yes.  Also, the US Presidency used to be that the VP was the losing candidate.

Lower_Neck_1432

Parties aren't even an official part of our process. Individual members of congress vote as they wish, while they often side with their party, there is no requirement to.  

So, no no one can step in and make them work together other, and they can decide to do nothing but that would hurt them in their next  primary and/or general election.

No.

The US constitutional system doesn’t recognize political parties at all.  

Due_Satisfaction2167

America has three "legs" on the stool of governance. Each has the same amount of power, and can check the other two. These are the Executive (President), Legislative (Congress, consists of the House and Senate), and Judicial (Supreme Court). The Executive branch was set up with similar powers as an 18th century monarch, so we kind of do have an elected king, reselected every four years.

Political parties aren't part of the equation. If representatives can't get along and get things done, they are eventually held accountable by their constituency as lacking efficacy and voted out. Meanwhile, there is no mechanism for declaring lack of confidence, dissolving the government, quitting and go home. They must keep going, no matter how difficult or painful the process.

No. Our government shutting down occasionally when congress can't come to a consensus usually makes the news cycle.

DerthOFdata

No, not even close. The idea of a governor general or any position even remotely similar goes against everything the US was founded on and, to me, is an affront against a nations sovereignty that someone unelected, appointed by another nations monarch, which is already terrible in and of itself, an ocean or more away has to approve every piece of legislation in a supposedly sovereign nation, can unilaterally dissolve it's government and can unilaterally create law, something like this could never exist in the US. Look at something like the ICC, under US the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, nothing can be higher this the US cannot be a party to the ICC, a governor general type position would have the same issue since they OoC can unilaterally invalidate any court. 

blackhawk905

Wait Canada has one too? Same in Australia lmao

Absolutely-Epic

Not in the way that you are thinking.  There is a parliamentarian of both the house and the senate but their role is more like an MC/referee.  They don’t have control over the substantive policy debates only the procedural rules that those debates must follow.  Like the parliamentarian decides when Congress is allowed to pass a bill with a simple majority and then is the bill must be able to overcome a filibuster in the senate requiring 60 votes rather than 51.

mrlt10

Subvet98

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a Presidential Reference regarding the authority of Governors in the assent process for state bills.

Governor's Role in Legislative Process

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want