logo
As the Senate loses luster, more members run for governor. Is there a takeaway for Kamala Harris?

As the Senate loses luster, more members run for governor. Is there a takeaway for Kamala Harris?

Decades ago, Pete Wilson did something unusual. The U.S. senator came home to run for California governor.
The path to power typically goes the opposite direction, with governors trading the statehouse for the (perceived) influence and prestige of being one of just 100 members of a club that fancies itself — not so humbly or precisely — as 'the world's greatest deliberative body.'
Wilson bucked that sentiment.
'It is a much more difficult role,' he said of being governor, and one he came to much prefer over his position on Capitol Hill.
It turns out that Wilson, a Republican who narrowly prevailed in a fierce 1990 contest against Democrat Dianne Feinstein, was onto something.
Since, then five other lawmakers have left the Senate to become their state's governor. Several more tried and failed.
Although it's still more common for a governor to run for Senate than vice versa, in 2026 as many as three sitting U.S. senators may run for governor, the most in at least 90 years, according to the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.
Clearly, the U.S. Senate has lost some of its luster.
There have always been those who found the place, with its pretentious airs, dilatory pacing and stultifying rules of order, a frustrating environment to work in, much less thrive.
The late Wendell Ford, who served a term as Kentucky governor before spending the next 24 years in the Senate, used to say 'the unhappiest members of the Senate were the former governors,' recalled Charlie Cook, founder of the eponymous political newsletter. 'They were used to getting things done.'
And that, as Cook noted, 'was when the Senate did a lot more than it does now.'
What's more, the Senate used to be a more dignified, less partisan place — especially when compared with the fractious House. An apocryphal story has George Washington breakfasting with Thomas Jefferson and referring to the Senate as a saucer intended to cool the passions of the intemperate lower chamber. (It helps to picture a teacup filled with scalding brew.)
These days, both chambers are bubbling cauldrons of animosity and partisan backbiting.
Worse, there's not a whole lot of advising going in the Senate, which reflexively consents to pretty much whatever it is that President Trump asks of the prostrated Republican majority.
'The Senate has become an employment agency where we just have vote after vote after vote to confirm nominees that are are going to pass, generally, 53 to 47, with very rare exceptions,' said Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, a Democrat who's running to be governor of his home state.
The other announced gubernatorial hopeful is Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a Republican who's made no secret of his distaste for Washington after a single term. Tennessee's Marsha Blackburn, a fellow Republican fresh off reelection, is also expected to run for governor in her state.
Bennet arrived in the Senate 16 years ago and since then, he said, it's been 'really a one-way ratchet down.'
'You think about the fact that we're really down to a couple [of] bills a year,' he said this week between votes on Capitol Hill. 'One is a continuing resolution that isn't even a real appropriations bill ... it's just cementing the budget decisions that were made last year, and then the defense bill.'
Despite all that, Bennet said he's not running for governor 'because I'm worn out. It's not because I'm frustrated or bored or irritated or aggravated' with life in the Senate, 'though the Senate can be a very aggravating place to work.' Rather, working beneath the golden dome in Denver would offer a better opportunity 'to push back and to fight Trumpism,' he said, by offering voters a practical and affirmative Democratic alternative.
Try that as one of 47 straitjacketed senators.
When Wilson took office in January 1991, he succeeded the term-limited George Deukmejian, a fellow Republican.
He immediately faced a massive budget deficit, which he closed through a package of tax hikes and spending cuts facilitated by his negotiating partner, Democratic Assembly Speaker Willie Brown. Their agreement managed to antagonize Democrats and Republicans alike.
Wilson didn't much care.
After serving in the Legislature, as San Diego mayor and a U.S. senator, he often said being California governor was the best job he ever had. There are legislators to wrangle, agencies to oversee, natural disasters to address, interest groups to fend off — all while trying to stay in the good graces of millions of often cranky, impatient voters.
'Not everybody enjoys it,' Wilson said when asked about the prospect of Kamala Harris serving as governor, 'and not everyone is good at it.'
Harris, who served four years in the Senate before ascending to the vice presidency, has given herself the summer to decide whether to run for governor, try again for the White House or retire from politics altogether.
California's next governor will probably have to take some 'very painful steps,' Wilson said, given the dicey economic outlook and the likelihood of federal budget cuts and other hostile moves by the Trump administration. That will make a lot of people unhappy, including many of Harris' fellow Democrats.
How would she feel about returning to Sacramento's small stage, wrestling with intractable issues such as the budget and homelessness, and dealing with the inevitable political heat? We won't know until and unless Harris runs.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How Rhode Island finally pushed a partial assault weapons ban over the finish line
How Rhode Island finally pushed a partial assault weapons ban over the finish line

San Francisco Chronicle​

time12 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

How Rhode Island finally pushed a partial assault weapons ban over the finish line

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — Passing a new law restricting assault weapons took Rhode Island lawmakers more than 10 years, but it may offer a road map to other states looking to ease the proliferation of such firearms. For advocates, the fight is a prime example of the current challenges to passing gun control measures in the U.S., particularly surrounding semiautomatic rifles that have become the weapon of choice among those responsible for most of the country's devastating mass shootings. When Rhode Island's bill was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Dan McKee late last month, its sponsor, Democratic Rep. Jason Knight, told jubilant supporters: 'What was once the impossible became the inevitable.' How? Persistent advocacy, a change in legislative leadership and a last-minute overhaul to note the broader legal landscape. What did Rhode Island do? Rhode Island's ban, which goes into effect in 2026, prohibits the sale, manufacturing and distribution of certain high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide. The law does not prohibit possessing such weapons, a key distinction compared with other assault weapon bans enacted elsewhere in the U.S. Currently, only Washington state has a similar law. The assault weapons ban got a much-needed boost from Senate President Valerie Lawson, who secured the Senate's top spot in the middle of session after her predecessor, Sen. Dominick Ruggiero, died in April. Lawson turned to the bill's sponsors and others to find common ground between lawmakers in the House and Senate who remained split on how far the law should go. Lawson's endorsement was seen as critical to securing the bill's passage, whereas Ruggiero had previously deferred action, pointing instead to the need for Congress to act rather than a state Legislature taking the lead. 'There are issues at certain points that meet the moment,' Lawson said. 'I think it was the time for this." Gun control advocates also acknowledged that banning assault weapons in Rhode Island hadn't previously been a top priority given that the state has largely been spared from national high-profile shootings that sometimes help propel legislative change. Assault weapons bans consistently face court challenges In the U.S., just 11 states and Washington D.C. have some sort of prohibition on certain high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide. Rhode Island's version is the only one not yet facing a constitutional challenge — though a lawsuit against it is all but assured. Certain state legal battles are on hold until others make their way through lower federal courts. To date, none of the lawsuits have been completely thrown out, but the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to have the final say. As Rhode Island lawmakers were in the middle of their gun debate, the high court declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban — a move that some of the more conservative justices opposed. Justice Brett Kavanaugh even signaled that laws banning assault weapons are likely unconstitutional. 'Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court's ultimate decision making on the AR–15 issue,' Kavanaugh wrote, referencing a popular style of high-powered rifle. Yet the legal focus on banning such weapons often hinges on possessing firearms such as AR-15-style rifles and AK-47s, rather than on the distribution process. Rhode Island lawmakers hope that by tailoring their assault weapons ban to sales, manufacturing and distribution, they might will bypass the thorniest legal questions raised by the Second Amendment. What other states are doing Attempts to expand Democratic-dominated Hawaii's assault weapons ban to rifles in addition to pistols stalled this year. In New Mexico, Democratic lawmakers who control the General Assembly adjourned without taking up an assault weapon ban. In Rhode Island, advocates say their work isn't over. 'It's progress,' said Melissa Carden, executive director of the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence. 'But we know that a true assault weapons ban includes an enforceable ban on possession as well." Defenders of Rhode Island's law bristle that their version could be considered weak. They point out that residents looking to purchase an assault weapon from nearby New Hampshire or elsewhere will be blocked. That's because federal law prohibits people from traveling to a different state to purchase a gun and returning it to a state where that particular of weapon is banned. 'Some of my constituents have already called me and made comments about 'bad, bad bad, I'm going out and buying three and four of them now,'' said Sen. Louis DiPalma, the Senate sponsor of the statute. 'Okay, come July 1st next year, you will not be able to do that anymore.'

175+ Democrats supporting NAACP suit against dismantling Department of Education

time13 minutes ago

175+ Democrats supporting NAACP suit against dismantling Department of Education

More than 175 Democratic members of Congress are filing an amicus brief on Thursday opposing the Trump administration's overhaul of the U.S. Department of Education. 'The law couldn't be clearer: the president does not have the authority to unilaterally abolish the Department of Education,' Sen. Elizabeth Warren wrote in a statement first obtained by ABC News, adding, 'Donald Trump is not a king, and he cannot single-handedly cut off access to education for students across this country.' Warren and Reps. Jamie Raskin, Bobby Scott and Rosa DeLauro -- the ranking members of the House's Education and Judiciary committees -- are leading the 15-page legal document. They're joined by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, more than 20 Senate Democrats, and more than 150 other members of the House Democratic caucus. The lawmakers' brief attempting to block the administration from abolishing the Department of Education is in support of the NAACP's suit against the government this past spring. In March, that case argued that downsizing the department through a workforce reduction that slashed nearly half the agency's staff -- among other measures like terminating statutory grant programs -- violates the separation of powers and lacks constitutional authority. The NAACP, the National Education Association (NEA), and a coalition of groups filed a preliminary injunction with the U.S. District Court in the District of Maryland this week, arguing the judge's consideration of this case is needed after the administration's recent decision to pause more than $6 billion in congressionally appropriated education programs ahead of the school year. 'The motion seeks a remedy for the serious harm that the Trump Administration has inflicted on students, educators, schools, and colleges and universities, and asks the Court to direct the Department to fulfill its statutory obligations to students nationwide,' according to a statement released by the NEA, which represents more than 3 million educators. Raskin condemned the administration's efforts to curb public education, contending President Donald Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon can't abolish the agency without congressional approval. 'Congress created the Department of Education to ensure that every student in America could obtain a high-quality, free public school education,' Raskin wrote in a statement. 'This is the right of every citizen and an essential democratic safeguard against political tyranny,' he said. 'No president has the authority to dismantle a federal agency created by law. We're going to court to defend not only congressional power but the department's national educational mission, itself a pillar of American democracy,' Raskin added. The power to reorganize the executive branch belongs to Congress and is underscored by the fact that when presidents have reorganized the executive branch, they have done so 'through legislation and subject to appropriate restraints,' according to the brief by the lawmakers. Their brief argues that only Congress has the authority to create, restructure, and abolish federal agencies, it has to be done through legislation, and the Department of Education can't be unilaterally abolished because it's statutorily mandated. Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colorado, told ABC News closing the department would strip 'vital support' from tens of millions of students and teachers. 'I'm proud to stand with my colleagues in the House and Senate to uphold Congress' responsibility to ensure every student has access to a quality education and to defend the essential work of the Department of Education,' Neguse said. Efforts to dismantle the department have been blocked by lower courts this spring. The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on a Massachusetts case that could decide whether the firing of nearly 2,000 employees at the agency stands. McMahon has stressed the critical functions of the department remain and that services like students with disabilities, for example, could ultimately be moved to other agencies. The brief is part of Warren's larger Save Our Schools campaign that she started after Trump signed an executive order to diminish the Department of Education. "The federal government has invested in our public schools," Warren told ABC News in April. "Taking that away from our kids so that a handful of billionaires can be even richer is just plain ugly, and I will fight it with everything I've got." The senator has previously requested the agency's Office of Inspector General review the Department of Government Efficiency's alleged "infiltration" of the agency's internal federal student loan database. Prior to the Save Our Schools campaign, she investigated the firing of federal student aid employees and how a reduction in staff at the agency could have "dire consequences" for borrowers. The brief also comes after Raskin and several other House Democrats met with McMahon about the future of the agency. That meeting appeared to leave many with unanswered questions, like Rep. Frederica Wilson, a senior member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, who also signed on to the amicus brief. "For the Department of Education to be dismantled, it is going to bring a shock to this nation," said Wilson, a former principal and lifelong educator. "Schools are the bedrock of this nation. When schools are working, our country is, too."

How Rhode Island finally pushed a partial assault weapons ban over the finish line
How Rhode Island finally pushed a partial assault weapons ban over the finish line

Associated Press

time19 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

How Rhode Island finally pushed a partial assault weapons ban over the finish line

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — Passing a new law restricting assault weapons took Rhode Island lawmakers more than 10 years, but it may offer a road map to other states looking to ease the proliferation of such firearms. For advocates, the fight is a prime example of the current challenges to passing gun control measures in the U.S., particularly surrounding semiautomatic rifles that have become the weapon of choice among those responsible for most of the country's devastating mass shootings. When Rhode Island's bill was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Dan McKee late last month, its sponsor, Democratic Rep. Jason Knight, told jubilant supporters: 'What was once the impossible became the inevitable.' How? Persistent advocacy, a change in legislative leadership and a last-minute overhaul to note the broader legal landscape. What did Rhode Island do? Rhode Island's ban, which goes into effect in 2026, prohibits the sale, manufacturing and distribution of certain high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide. The law does not prohibit possessing such weapons, a key distinction compared with other assault weapon bans enacted elsewhere in the U.S. Currently, only Washington state has a similar law. A leadership change helped propel momentum The assault weapons ban got a much-needed boost from Senate President Valerie Lawson, who secured the Senate's top spot in the middle of session after her predecessor, Sen. Dominick Ruggiero, died in April. Lawson turned to the bill's sponsors and others to find common ground between lawmakers in the House and Senate who remained split on how far the law should go. Lawson's endorsement was seen as critical to securing the bill's passage, whereas Ruggiero had previously deferred action, pointing instead to the need for Congress to act rather than a state Legislature taking the lead. 'There are issues at certain points that meet the moment,' Lawson said. 'I think it was the time for this.' Gun control advocates also acknowledged that banning assault weapons in Rhode Island hadn't previously been a top priority given that the state has largely been spared from national high-profile shootings that sometimes help propel legislative change. Assault weapons bans consistently face court challenges In the U.S., just 11 states and Washington D.C. have some sort of prohibition on certain high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide. Rhode Island's version is the only one not yet facing a constitutional challenge — though a lawsuit against it is all but assured. Certain state legal battles are on hold until others make their way through lower federal courts. To date, none of the lawsuits have been completely thrown out, but the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to have the final say. As Rhode Island lawmakers were in the middle of their gun debate, the high court declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban — a move that some of the more conservative justices opposed. Justice Brett Kavanaugh even signaled that laws banning assault weapons are likely unconstitutional. 'Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court's ultimate decision making on the AR–15 issue,' Kavanaugh wrote, referencing a popular style of high-powered rifle. Yet the legal focus on banning such weapons often hinges on possessing firearms such as AR-15-style rifles and AK-47s, rather than on the distribution process. Rhode Island lawmakers hope that by tailoring their assault weapons ban to sales, manufacturing and distribution, they might will bypass the thorniest legal questions raised by the Second Amendment. What other states are doingAttempts to expand Democratic-dominated Hawaii's assault weapons ban to rifles in addition to pistols stalled this year. In New Mexico, Democratic lawmakers who control the General Assembly adjourned without taking up an assault weapon ban. In Rhode Island, advocates say their work isn't over. 'It's progress,' said Melissa Carden, executive director of the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence. 'But we know that a true assault weapons ban includes an enforceable ban on possession as well.' Defenders of Rhode Island's law bristle that their version could be considered weak. They point out that residents looking to purchase an assault weapon from nearby New Hampshire or elsewhere will be blocked. That's because federal law prohibits people from traveling to a different state to purchase a gun and returning it to a state where that particular of weapon is banned. 'Some of my constituents have already called me and made comments about 'bad, bad bad, I'm going out and buying three and four of them now,'' said Sen. Louis DiPalma, the Senate sponsor of the statute. 'Okay, come July 1st next year, you will not be able to do that anymore.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store