Is it Mathematically Impossible

[kapkomet]

The full election results have to be 100% certified and signed by everyone in the state. That's the Al Franken standard, if you'll recall. It takes time to count up absentee ballots, to get all of the signatures, etc.

 

 

They better pass that health care!

[Cknolls]

They better pass that health care!

 

i believe there is precedent that an interim appointed Senator's term expires after a new Senator is elected by the people. Not after he is certified.

[Balta1701]

i believe there is precedent that an interim appointed Senator's term expires after a new Senator is elected by the people. Not after he is certified.

Then how does stuff ever get passed in November/December, between the election date and the swearing-in?

[jasonxctf]

i believe there is precedent that an interim appointed Senator's term expires after a new Senator is elected by the people. Not after he is certified.

 

so to play devils advocate, lets say Brown won by 1 vote. There's court cases, recounts, etc. Wouldn't you need to wait until his victory had been formally certified?

[Rex Kickass]

Then how does stuff ever get passed in November/December, between the election date and the swearing-in?

 

I believe the precedent that he is speaking of is unique to Massachussets.

[Cknolls]

I believe the precedent that he is speaking of is unique to Massachussets.

 

 

Can anyone give a good reason why they cannot certify this election? She conceded, and he won by a larger margin than supposed absentee vote. Besides politics give me a reason. Kennedy sworn in next day. Tsongas sworn in 2 days later. Republican=wait.

[Rex Kickass]

Because that's how the law to hold the special election was written when it was voted on a few years ago.

[Cknolls]

Because that's how the law to hold the special election was written when it was voted on a few years ago.

 

Oh, ok. I thought politics had something to do with it. Laws are for Repubs only in Mass. Got it!!

[jasonxctf]

what's the hurry?

[jasonxctf]

With the Senate Democrats indicating that they will wait for the state of Massachusetts to follow its own procedural guidelines for certifying a winner in the Massachusetts special Senate election, the next question should be asked: What are the state's guidelines and procedures?

 

We asked Michelle Tassinari, the legal counsel for the state Elections Division, and she sent us over a list of the relevant statutes.

 

First of all, no certificate of election can be issued until at least ten days following a special election, and in real terms it would probably be at least 15 days. State law can allow for a certificate seven days after a special election -- but that law is trumped by the federal laws governing overseas and military ballots, which are triggered because this is an election for federal office, and which create a longer window in this election.

 

The delay between election day and certification of the winner is provided for by state law in order for local election officials -- there are 351 local election offices in the state -- to certify their totals, and to count overseas absentee ballots that have not arrived until after election day. The deadline for absentee ballots sent from overseas to reach their local election offices is 5 p.m. on January 29.

 

Tassinari also explained to us that January 29 is not necessarily the endpoint. Ballots must arrive by 5 p.m. on that day, and the local election officials cannot have their meeting to count them until after 5 p.m. that day. The local election officials then have up to five more days to resolve any provisional ballots before they certify their local election results, which must be done by February 3rd.

 

After the results are received from the local election officials, the Secretary of State will present the total results to the governor and the Governor's Council for certification. Only after the results are certified by the governor and the Governor's Council can a certificate of election be issued. (The governor and the council schedule their own meetings, which usually take place on Wednesdays.)

 

So what does this all mean? Looking over these statutes, it seems clear that unless the result is very, very close (think Al Franken and Norm Coleman in Minnesota, or Scott Murphy and Jim Tedisco in NY-20), we should probably know on election night who has been elected when the vast majority of votes are counted. But even then, state law is clear that a certificate of election cannot be issued until at least 15 days later.

 

And if Senate Democrats insist on a completed certificate -- just as the Senate Dems did in their unsuccessful attempts to keep out Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL), and Senate Republicans did in their successful blocking of Al Franken during the Minnesota litigation -- that would keep the winner out for at least 15 days.

 

[Cknolls]

With the Senate Democrats indicating that they will wait for the state of Massachusetts to follow its own procedural guidelines for certifying a winner in the Massachusetts special Senate election, the next question should be asked: What are the state's guidelines and procedures?

 

We asked Michelle Tassinari, the legal counsel for the state Elections Division, and she sent us over a list of the relevant statutes.

 

First of all, no certificate of election can be issued until at least ten days following a special election, and in real terms it would probably be at least 15 days. State law can allow for a certificate seven days after a special election -- but that law is trumped by the federal laws governing overseas and military ballots, which are triggered because this is an election for federal office, and which create a longer window in this election.

 

The delay between election day and certification of the winner is provided for by state law in order for local election officials -- there are 351 local election offices in the state -- to certify their totals, and to count overseas absentee ballots that have not arrived until after election day. The deadline for absentee ballots sent from overseas to reach their local election offices is 5 p.m. on January 29.

 

Tassinari also explained to us that January 29 is not necessarily the endpoint. Ballots must arrive by 5 p.m. on that day, and the local election officials cannot have their meeting to count them until after 5 p.m. that day. The local election officials then have up to five more days to resolve any provisional ballots before they certify their local election results, which must be done by February 3rd.

 

After the results are received from the local election officials, the Secretary of State will present the total results to the governor and the Governor's Council for certification. Only after the results are certified by the governor and the Governor's Council can a certificate of election be issued. (The governor and the council schedule their own meetings, which usually take place on Wednesdays.)

 

So what does this all mean? Looking over these statutes, it seems clear that unless the result is very, very close (think Al Franken and Norm Coleman in Minnesota, or Scott Murphy and Jim Tedisco in NY-20), we should probably know on election night who has been elected when the vast majority of votes are counted. But even then, state law is clear that a certificate of election cannot be issued until at least 15 days later.

 

And if Senate Democrats insist on a completed certificate -- just as the Senate Dems did in their unsuccessful attempts to keep out Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL), and Senate Republicans did in their successful blocking of Al Franken during the Minnesota litigation -- that would keep the winner out for at least 15 days.

 

 

Except when it is a Kennedy, then NEXT DAY WILL DO FINE THANK YOU! What hypocrisy? When the opponent concedes, I think we can say it is over.

[jasonxctf]

but what's the hurry? It's not like its been months. I think we are 10 days post election.

[Cknolls]

but what's the hurry? It's not like its been months. I think we are 10 days post election.

 

 

I find it fascinating that nobody can give a good answer as to why one person is seated the next day,TEDDY, and another who won with his opponent conceding has not been seated 13 days later. Maybe if the Dems needed his vote for a veto they would seat him? hmmm..... I'm glad only the r's play games.

[Balta1701]

I find it fascinating that nobody can give a good answer as to why one person is seated the next day,TEDDY, and another who won with his opponent conceding has not been seated 13 days later. Maybe if the Dems needed his vote for a veto they would seat him? hmmm..... I'm glad only the r's play games.

Because over a period of 45 years, laws change?

[kapkomet]

Because over a period of 45 years, laws change?

 

 

Everything's always justifyable in the Democrat world, no matter what the cost.

[Cknolls]

Because over a period of 45 years, laws change?

 

Did they change from 2007 to now when Tsongas was seated in 2 days? I know it a representatives race, but the same premise.

[Balta1701]

Did they change from 2007 to now when Tsongas was seated in 2 days? I know it a representatives race, but the same premise.

Quite frankly, yeah. The "We're not seating them until they have all of the appropriate signatures" came about because the Senate didn't want to seat Burress, and then it was used to keep the Dems from seating Senator Franken during the legal challenges.

[southsider2k5]

Did they change from 2007 to now when Tsongas was seated in 2 days? I know it a representatives race, but the same premise.

 

Kennedy tried many times to have the rules changed to fit what he perceived as being the best way to get a Democrat elected in MASS.

[BigSqwert]

but what's the hurry?

 

Perhaps he works for one of the many big banks that funded his campaign.

Edited February 1, 2010 by BigSqwert

[Balta1701]

Perhaps he works for one of the many big banks that funded his campaign.

You say that as if its something unusual that the Banks have purchased the government.

[southsider2k5]

What is intersting about that is the quiet influence that unions have had on elections for decades, and I don't recall any outrage here in these parts....

 

http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/1550-o...d-union-support

 

Since 1990, labor unions have contributed over $667 million in election campaigns in the United States, of which $614 million or 92 percent went to support Democratic candidates. In 2008, unions spent $74.5 million in campaign contributions, with $68.3 million going to the Democratic Party. Already, unions have contributed $6.5 million to the 2010 elections, and $6 million has gone to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C.

[BigSqwert]

Labor unions consist of hard working people. People like my parents. I have a little more sympathy for hard working middle class people over aristocratic bankers.

[southsider2k5]

Labor unions consist of hard working people. People like my parents. I have a little more sympathy for hard working middle class people over aristocratic bankers.

 

Banks are full of hard working people too. Of course you see them through a biased prism that all of them are bad, instead of recognizing the separation between management and employees that exist there as well. Remarkably, if you take your average Ford workers, and your guy working at the bank down the street, the union guy is going to be getting paid tons more.

[Balta1701]

What is intersting about that is the quiet influence that unions have had on elections for decades, and I don't recall any outrage here in these parts....

 

http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/1550-o...d-union-support

I'd happily trade zero contributions from labor unions for zero corporate contributions. For example, you seem to be a lot angrier about the $70 million coming from labor unions last cycle than you are about the $166 million coming from the Health Care industry alone.

 

One single industry in one cycle more than doubles the total contributions of unions, and you wonder why we think corporate influence is a little more pernicious than union influence?

[Balta1701]

Banks are full of hard working people too. Of course you see them through a biased prism that all of them are bad, instead of recognizing the separation between management and employees that exist there as well. Remarkably, if you take your average Ford workers, and your guy working at the bank down the street, the union guy is going to be getting paid tons more.

Because your average guy at the bank down the street isn't what we're talking about, unless Ford has a plant in downtown Manhattan. The average guy at the bank down the street didn't get his or her year-end million dollar bonus from the taxpayers after he or she nearly took down the whole country.