So the Rats don’t want the voters to choose. What a shock...
The 2012 election won’t be a special election. The seat was already scheduled to be up for election, that year.
Essentially, they’re going to have an election for a 6-month term.
“interesting document” my arse...it is quite clear that the election should be held...there is nothing in there that says anything about timlines except that July 3 was the cutoff...screw the filing dates, they aren’t covered in this law...and if the spineless RNC doesn’t cover expenses to sue their azzes they are worse than I thought and that is plenty bad.
one less vote for cloture on cap-n-trade too,, ‘til next year anyway
Now we're to believe that they have to wait two years to do the same in West Virginia?
What would Byrd have said about this?
Sounds to me like someone is throwing a lot of chaff in the air in hopes the democrats will come up with something concrete.
Strike my previous post. I mistakenly was thinking that they meant 2011. They don’t. They’re just going to appoint someone to fill the balance of Byrd’s original term, and hold the election as scheduled in 2012. This was predictable.
So if I understand the SOS correctly. VW will have 1 senator until 2012...Cool. One less Rat.
I fricking hate Democrats. I HATE THEM!
will there be KKK honors at his funeral?
Why have an election? Just let Obama appoint someone to fill the post on a permanent basis.
“It’s not immediately clear whether Republicans — either at the state or national level — will challenge Tennant’s ruling.”
Given the current GOP leadership, we all know the answer.
Libs would be up in the barricades already demanding special election (and GOP would fold within a day to grant the wish). God I hate the pathetic, spineless GOP leadership.
This ruling does follow the West Virginia statute. Sorry to say it, but the language is pretty clear. I actually thought that it was to Manchin’s advantage to have a special election this year and that he might try to figure out a way to get that done. I think that he would have been hard to beat in 2010, 2012 is a long time and lots of things can happen along the way.
The Secretary of State is a Democrat too (big surprise they would ignore the rules)? just check wikipedia.
The year after next? That’s got to be a typo!
New Jersey: Democrats argue that Robert Torricelli, who stepped aside because he was losing in the polls, be allowed to be replaced in the final weeks with someone with more of a chance to win, in the name of giving the voters a competitive election. The courts agree.
Hawaii: Democrats argue that deceased House incumbant Patsy Mink be allowed to remain on the ballot despite having died, because she has name recognition for voters who want to still vote Democrat. A vote for Mink will be a vote for her ballot replacement. The courts agree.
Missouri: Democrats argue that the deceased Senate candidate Mel Carnahan be allowed to remain on the ballot, and that a vote for him is a vote for the Governor to appoint a successor (his wife), should his name win. The courts agree.
Massachusetts: Democrats argue that the Governor should be allowed to appoint an interim Senator to fill the seat vacated by the deceased Ted Kennedy, despite the law that leaves the seat vacant until a special election. The courts agree.
Ahem...the former KKK Kleagle racist SOB...Robert Byrd, may God rest his soul,...
Well there does come a time...