Ministerial by-election
From 1708 to 1926, members of parliament (MPs) of the House of Commons of Great Britain (and later the United Kingdom) automatically vacated their seats when made ministers in government and had to successfully contest a by-election in order to rejoin the House; such ministerial by-elections were imported into the constitutions of several colonies of the British Empire, where they were likewise all abolished by the mid-20th century.
Unlike in the United States, whose constitution took such ideas to the extreme by fully separating the executive and legislative branches, support for some royal patronage meant that whilst MPs were barred from keeping their seats when made ministers, ministers holding an existing portfolio were not required to surrender their office when elected as an MP.
Nevertheless, supporters of the practice frustrated attempts at its abolition, arguing that it provided a check on the government in an era where general elections were few and far between and allowed a constituency to avoid having its MP appointed to national office without its consent.
In the meantime, Whigs desired to maintain a strong executive for the Hanoverian monarchs who would succeed Anne, whereas Tories wished to check the power of royal placemen.
Apart from the embarrassment of losing such an election, they were inconvenient and drew new ministers away from their portfolios and Parliament, and into a significant period (sometimes up to a fortnight) of local campaigning.
The Reform Act 1867, primarily concerned with expanding the franchise, also included a provision making cabinet reshuffles easier by abolishing the necessity to seek re-election for an existing minister taking a new portfolio.
Amberley's and Bury's proposals were received negatively by backbenchers in the Commons, who condemned them as machinations to greatly change the constitution without public debate.
[16] Harcourt would reverse course when made the Home Secretary in 1880 and facing the resultant contest in Oxford, bemoaning that he was "to consider the question of a cheap and pure supply of water for the people of London ...
[18] Ministerial by-elections attracted little further attention until the Edwardian era, when the bitter politics of the time resulted in their prominence and led to their being referendums on both the government and various policies.
In particular, many special interest groups such as the Tariff Reform League and the Women's Social and Political Union fiercely contested these elections to promote their causes.
[19] An exception was The Times, which when detailing a by-election for Walthamstow in 1910 noted that the practice had begun in the reign of Queen Anne "to prevent the Court from swamping the House of Commons with placemen and pensioners" and described it as "anomalous" and "indefensible" for the 20th century.
Despite exuberance from the frontbench, Liberal and Irish Nationalist backbenchers, who felt betrayed by various actions of the ministry, attacked the acts' rationale and stated that the Commons was chronically underworked during the war.
[24] Opposition was sufficient to sink attempts for another moratorium in 1917, when Churchill had to run a by-election on becoming the minister of Munitions and successfully faced a challenger.
[25] Upon the return of peace, the Lloyd George ministry, which relied heavily on patronage, had its house leader, Bonar Law, table a bill that would become the Re-Election of Ministers Act 1919.
[29] In that year, the second Baldwin ministry fielded a candidate at a by-election for Bury St Edmunds in December and again for East Renfrewshire in January 1926, where Alexander MacRobert prevailed by 900 votes to remain the Solicitor General for Scotland.
A private member's bill was introduced by the Conservative backbencher Christopher Clayton shortly after the East Renfrewshire contest to abolish the ministerial by-elections altogether, which soon received the support of the government.
[34] The first British colony to achieve responsible government was Nova Scotia, which received it on 8 January 1848;[35] its House of Assembly did away with ministerial by-elections in 1927.
Meighen presided over a shaky minority government, so he advised Byng to appoint "acting ministers" to avoid the need for by-elections.
[43] Despite questions as to why such a wasteful practice needed to occur immediately after a general election, and buoyed by a belief[e] that they were required by the British North America Act 1867,[44] federal by-elections continued until they were abolished by another Conservative government in 1931.
Despite a proposal by Liberal frontbencher Ernest Lapointe to restrict abolition to a nine-month period after a general election similar to what had been British practice, the final legislation ended them altogether.
This proposal, led by Attorney General William Folger Nickle,[46] succeeded only in securing limited exemptions before final abolition occurred in 1941.
[36] British Columbia joined Canada in 1871; its Legislative Assembly ended ministerial by-elections in 1929 against a proposed amendment to limit abolition to a few months after a general election.
Dominion status would soon end due to shaky finances; a British-controlled Commission of Government was appointed in 1934 and remained in power until Newfoundland became a province of Canada in 1949.
[54] George Reid's seat in the Legislative Assembly was contested on an unrelated technicality in 1884, and the resultant constitutional amendment to clarify the issue led to a movement to abolish ministerial by-elections.
Several bills were introduced to that effect, but all were defeated until ministerial by-elections were finally abolished in 1906 as part of widespread electoral reform.
[50] Despite having a few ministerial positions specially exempted from by-election in its 1890 constitution, Western Australia was unusual in having a tradition of contesting the elections that did occur.
[58] The Parliament of Southern Ireland never achieved widespread legitimacy in any event, being outcompeted by the Dáil Éireann in the Irish War of Independence; the constitution of the Irish Free State that arose from the war expressly abolished ministerial by-elections, stating that "[t]he appointment of a member of Dáil Éireann to be a Minister shall not entail upon him any obligation to resign his seat or to submit himself for re-election".
[36] Southern Rhodesia was granted self-government in 1923 by letters patent that explicitly eliminated ministerial by-elections on terms similar to that of the Irish Free State.
[60] The Government of India Act 1935 exempted central and provincial ministers, or those serving a princely state on behalf of the Crown, from by-election.
As of 2022[update], only Oregon, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Rhode Island outright deny their governors the ability to appoint temporary senators, and the large majority of the remaining states provide no restrictions on the practice.
