The way the code reads, the timing refers to "between primary and general elections," and I don't know if an election is complete on the day the ballots are cast, or on the day the contest is finally settled, or some other day. Either way, I don't think "certification" represents final settlement. If McDaniel contests the certified outcome, the race remains unsettled until his claim is resolved.
If Cochran wins the primary (gets a final settlement after McDaniel's claims have been resolved), then drops out between the primary and general election (whatever that timing is), then there is no person with a majority of votes in the primary.
I noticed that the code does not directly address a situation where the majority vote getter in the primary (the nominee) drops out for political reasons; and that's partly how I reached the inference that if Cochran drops out for political reasons, another primary has to be held. There is also a note in the code, that if Cochran drops out for other than a non-political reason, the executive committee lacks the power to name the party's nominee. This is under 23-15-317, "vacancy in nomination between primary election and general election" ...
If a nominee withdraws for a legitimate nonpolitical reason as defined in Section 23-15-317 and his sworn affidavit is approved by the State Board of Election Commissioners, the municipal party executive committee would then be required to name a substitute nominee. If a nominee withdraws and no affidavit is submitted and approved, said executive committee would have no authority to name a substitute nominee. In either case, the nominee has the right to withdraw his candidacy pursuant to Section 23-15-363. Baum, May 20, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0237.I think all that complexity is there to prevent parties from pulling bait and switch, or intimidating/bribing a nominee (primary winner) to withdraw - and also to encourage candidates to stick to their decision to run in the primary contest.
The way I see it, the voters have fully spoken in the primary. We don't know the results yet, but the election has been held. If Cochran is found to be the winner, and drops out for ANY reason, there is no person with a majority of votes in the primary. If Cochran drops out without a good non-political reason, the party apparatchik can't name a nominee - and no person has a majority. Looks to me that path means another election.
If Cochran is found the winner then drops out with a good non-political reason, and the party apparatchik names Barbour's son as the nominee, McDaniel will contest the selection, and again there has to be an election so one or the other can obtain a majority of votes from the qualified electorate.
The fact pattern in this primary contest may admit McDaniel to otain the nomination without yet another election (assuming Cochran "wins" the primary, and drops out). If McDaniel is unopposed (i.e., T. Carey has no intention to run - but note that he'd have been on the runoff ballot if Cochran had dropped out before the runoff), conducting an election with one name on the ballot is pointless.
However, I go back to the risk of a DEM suing on the argument that NOBODY got a majority in the GOP primary, therefore the GOP winner in the general is not entitled to the seat.
I don't read that the same way. There is no case of dropping out for political reasons. "Political reasons" is a code-word for losing. This is meant to prevent anoth New Jersey Torricelli situation, where he dropped out because he was losing badly in the polls and the Democrats wanted to prevent Forrester from winning.
Because there is no case of dropping out for political reasons, that means that the name stays on the ballot, and the candidate then loses. There is no redo of a primary.
If Cochran wins the primary in such a pyrrhic way that he has soured himself in the general election, that's just tough for Republicans. They're stuck with him. No do-overs.
That's why it's imperative now to get Cochran out and let McDaniel win while the primary election is not finalized.
-PJ