Brown win could spark legal battle

Politico ^ | January 17, 2010 | Chris Frates & Manu Raju

[deport]

If Brown wins, then as I understand it, he has to be certified within 10 days.

---

The question is when is he declared the winner? This is a federal election and I believe the feds require that overseas absentee ballots have a grace period of 10 days to arrive. Thus they can’t finish the count until that timeline is passed, correct?

[ChildOfThe60s]

And any Democratic move to slow-walk seating Brown in order to pass reform, Blando said, is "just naked, pure power politics where, at that point, you're just thwarting the will of the people."

OK, so this would just be a consistent continuation of what they've been doing all along on DeathCare. They've violated numerous rules getting it voted on to begin with. Bringing it out of committee without Republicans voting, for a start. Secret negotiations going on now with the Republican's locked out of the room. How's that for "thwarting the will of the people"?

I don't see that being some sort of ethical roadblock to the fascists.

[JasonC]

The left are out and out crooks and lost their last allegiance to democracy about five exits back. If they play this game one or two more times, nobody will bother paying any attention to elections or elected anybody's. We'll pick our own leaders in our own ways, and they simply won't be invited to participate. At all.

[Hardshell]

Here's a scenario that I've been wondering about.....What if Brown soundly defeats Coakley...then meets with a rather untimely demise? Will Kirk still hold on to his Senate seat? Of course I'm not suggesting anything about anybody......but life is stranger than fiction, you know.....

[potlatch]

The dems have a dem-ilemma dilemma, lol.

[Stultis]

Obama and congressional Democrats held marathon White House meetings to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions of reform and craft a final bill that can pass Congress.

Funny. I've had C-Span on for days, and never saw these.

Even funnier, aren't both houses of congress out of session, and have been for weeks? If the content of legislation is going to be decided by secret, extra-legal, single-party confabs in the White House, why have a legislature at all? (Rhetorical question ... FOR NOW.)

[mwl8787]

Will never happen.

[OrangeHoof]

The minute the results are official, the Brown lawyers should be in DC asking for a restraining order with any legal body that might have jurisdiction.

I hope the GOP also argues that were it not for the monkey business used to put Kirk in office in the first place, we would not even have this debate. The post would be vacant from the time Teddy keeled over to the time a replacement was duly elected.

[jazusamo]

The House was back in session on Jan. 5, don’t know what day the Senate resumed but you’re right, all this negotiating between the two have been in secret meetings without Repubs present.

[airborne]

Not if Scott wins by a landslide!!!

[jazusamo]

Exactly, and from the reports on polls as days go by it just may be a landslide.

[1_Rain_Drop]

When Bill Owens won NY 23, wasn’t he certified instantly?

[ricks_place]

Massachusetts' Law Section 140 of chapter 54 of the General Laws

(f) Upon failure to choose a senator in congress or upon a vacancy in that office, the governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill the vacancy; provided, however, that the person so appointed shall serve until the election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy pursuant to subsection (a) or (c).

All Massachusetts US Senate Candidates are already qualified by the terms of the US Constitution. The Massachusetts legislature probably should have said until certification if they wanted to keep the appointed Senator in office after election but before certification. Massachusetts' interim Senator Paul Kirk is out by law at election even before certification by plain reading the law code. LOL

[jazusamo]

Thanks, that looks pretty clear to me but the RATS will surely come up with something phony to dispute it, they always seem to. :)

[Huskerscott]

One thing to consider are the Senators from red states up for election. Ben Nelson is in a lot of trouble in Nebraska and he may be looking for a life line. If the Dems pull their dirty trick lever, you could have a Ben Nelson step in a say I will not vote to end the fillibuster until Brown is seated. Ben has touted his ability to reach across aisles and form compromises, if he wants to save his skin in the 2010 election, he needs to stand up against the Dems and be seen as doing the right thing.

[Stultis]

O.K. I wasn't aware of that. The House apparently did officially begin their second session on January 5th. But have they actually done anything?

This week they apparently don't convene until Tuesday afternoon. The Senate goes back in session on Wednesday.

[devolve]

.

Di-lemmings

[Nateman]

Kirk holds his seat illegally from day one. The law said a special election had to be held. They changed the law to let the governor pick the replacement after Ted died. This is ex post facto. You don’t get to change the rules after the outcome is already known. Kirk’s vote on anything should be null and void.

[Tymesup]

From your second link:

The Massachusetts law, passed in September to authorize Kirk’s appointment, provides that an appointed Senator shall serve “until the election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy.”

Note that it says election and qualification, making it appear Kirk stays until Mass is done with their process.

[potlatch]

[Di-lemmings]

May get led astray......