Richard Dunham: Ten reasons why the Massachusetts Senate race is very, very important

10 comments on “Richard Dunham: Ten reasons why the Massachusetts Senate race is very, very important”

1. Archer_of_the_Forest says:

   January 19, 2010 at 4:43 am

   I am still not buying the doom and gloom “Health care is going to go down the tubes” if the Republican takes this seat. If Coakley loses and concedes (which I guarantee will be a nasty recount suit if its anywhere near as close as predictions), the certificate of election must still be signed by both the Secretary of the Commonwealth, William Galvin (D) and Gov. Deval Patrick (D). Neither willbe in a big hurry to sign, and there is no law forcing them to sign the day after the election. They will drag their feet as long as possible to give the Congress enough time to squeak through the health bill. The Republicans could go to court to try to force them to sign, but the court case could take even longer, and the Republicans couldn’t argue that Massachusetts was not fully represented in the Senate because Sen. Kirk would still be there. He doesn’t leave office until the minute his successor is sworn in.

   Even if Brown won and was sworn in quickly (which is highly unlikely on several scenarios), that would not necessarily mean the end of the health-insurance bill. The Senate did pass a bill on Christmas Eve. If the House were to vote on and pass exactly the same bill–word for word with zero changes–then there would be a bill that both houses of Congress passed and could go to the President to sign. Of course, House members wouldn’t like having the Senate bill shoved down their throats, but if it were the Senate bill or nothing, it would get 218 votes. Reconciliation bill I believe they call it.

2. robroy says:

   January 19, 2010 at 5:42 am

   Intrade 73.5 vs 24. If Brown pulls this off, Pelosi needs to worry about getting a simple majority to pass it in the House. The bills are radioactive.

   It is my hope that they will go back to the drawing board and come up with a bill that is truly bipartisan and isn’t filled with pork.

3. Branford says:

   January 19, 2010 at 5:47 am

   According to others, once the election is held and if Brown wins, he is eligible immediately to take his Senate seat. Mass. does not call for “certification,” only “qualification” and Brown is qualified. See Fred Barnes here for more. If the Dems drag this out, I have a feeling November will be a complete disaster for them – it is too obvious.

4. Branford says:

   January 19, 2010 at 5:48 am

   And yes, they may try a reconciliation bill, something the Dems accused the Repubs of wanting to do when they had a majority (but never did), yet when it fits their agenda, those reservations just seem to disappear.

5. Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) says:

   January 19, 2010 at 6:00 am

   Hey, if you’re a Brown supporter this is a great chance to buy Coakley cheap. If Brown wins, you’re happy — and we’re all much better off. If Choakley manages to pull it off, you make a tidy little profit, so the loss doesn’t hurt quite so much — and we’re all no worse off than [i]status quo ante[/i].

6. Paul PA says:

   January 19, 2010 at 6:47 am

   When does Kirks term as mass senator end – when the winner is certified or just once the election takes place? Some seem to say he dis done the day of the election regardless of the outcome, etc

7. Archer_of_the_Forest says:

   January 19, 2010 at 8:21 am

   Well, as I read the US Senate rules of order, a Senator-elect cannot take seat until his election is duly certified by the legal certification process of the State from whence he or she comes. And as I read the Massachusetts constitution and laws on this (and they are somewhat garbled because the Massachusetts legislature changed them a few years back to stop a governor (a Republican at the time) from simply appointing someone to a remainder of an existing term), any certificate of election must still be signed by both the Secretary of the Commonwealth and Governor of the State.

   Seeing as this is a special election and not for a regular calendar term of 6 years, the wording as I read it suggests that the incumbent remains in office until such time as the elected successor is sworn in and seated by the US Senate.

   Massachusetts has tinkered with its election process in this matter several times in the last ten years, but I believe, according to their statutes and constitution, that this is the current form. At least, this is what is listed online from the official site.

8. Branford says:

   January 19, 2010 at 9:00 am

   Archer_of_the_Forest – I’m sure whatever happens there will be discussion of who goes where when, but from here a couple of points:

   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.” This would seem to support the position that Kirk can continue to serve after the special election is held. However, the Senate has previously found that substantially similar state laws cannot extend the term of an appointed Senator beyond the date of the special election. . .

   [From a 1937 case that the Senate ruled on] Berry’s claim was referred to a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which held a hearing and considered legal arguments on the matter. A legal analysis prepared for the subcommittee found that “in view of [Seventeenth Amendment’s] purpose of providing for representation in the Senate by persons elected by popular vote both for full terms and for unexpired terms it seems reasonable to assume that no temporary appointment was to be authorized except for the intervening period between the creation of a vacancy and the day when the people by their votes actually elect a successor, or, in other words, until they elect a person to fill the vacancy.” . . .

   The Senate subcommittee and committee concluded, based on its hearing and review, that “the term of service of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy in an unexpired term ends on the day when his successor is elected by the people.” 1939 Congressional Record, p. 998. There was evidently no controversy among either the subcommittee or full committee regarding this legal conclusion, and the committee then presented a resolution to the Senate for adoption, expressing the view that Berry’s term of service expired on November 8, 1938, the date of the special election. As Senator Connally, a member of the subcommittee, explained to the Senate, the fact that the Tennessee statute purported to extend Berry’s term until the qualification of his successor was of no force because the statute was “plainly in conflict with the provisions of the seventeenth amendment.” Accordingly, the Senate adopted the proposed resolution without dissent. 1939 Congressional Record, p. 1058.

   Based on this authority, it would appear that a valid point of order could be raised as to Senator Kirk’s participation in Senate proceedings after January 19, 2010.

   Tuesday should be interesting!

9. Fr. Dale says:

   January 19, 2010 at 9:07 am

   [blockquote]This is the “Kennedy” seat.[/blockquote]
   As Brown would remind the author of this article, “The seat belongs to the people of Massachusetts.”

10. Archer_of_the_Forest says:

    January 19, 2010 at 11:23 pm

    Another minor factor to consider, which has completely not been factored into any polls that I’ve read, is that there is an independent running. He, in himself, doesn’t have a snow ball’s chance, as a Libertarian. But, his last name is Kennedy (No relation to the Kennedy clan.)

    I’m wondering, though I have not heard anyone say it out loud because its probably not PC, but I am wondering how many uninformed voters are just going to go into the voter’s box and vote for Kennedy because he’s a Kennedy.

    In a razor thin election, one never knows.