says Prof. Rick Hasen (Election Law Blog). [Note important update below.] The question, of course, is what will happen if he is reelected, but then resigns or is expelled. Rick's answer:
There's a bit of a dispute over which rules apply. The old rules (see here) provided for the governor to fill a vacancy and then to call a special election afterwards, if the term would expire in more than 30 months. A controversy over the last Alaskan governor appointing his daughter to a vacant Senate seat led Alaska voters to pass an initiative changing the law. Under the new law, the governor still may appoint a temporary person to the seat, who sits only until a special election is called in 60-90 days after the vacancy occurs. Because Senator Stevens' term would expire in more than 30 months, there's not much difference between these old and new laws, except as to the timing of the special election.
There's a constitutional question under the 17th Amendment whether [a change by voter initiative] to the means for filling Senate vacancies are constitutional. Vik Amar thinks it is. I'm not so sure (I address a similar, but not identical, issue in this paper).
So, either way, the governor will have the power to fill a vacancy at least for the short time (meaning this [Wall Street Journal] Washington Wire post is incorrect at the end).
Go to Rick's post for more, and for the links to the various other items he refers to.
UPDATE: Rick has a follow-up post:
More on Alaska Replacement Law, and Why the WSJ Washington Wire Was Right
Following up on this post, an alert reader points me to an Alaska Supreme Court case, State of Alaska v. Trust the People, 113 P.2d 613 (2005). The case involved a pre-election challenge to the initiative that changed the Alaska rules for replacing Senate candidates. In the case, the proponents of the initiative challenged a decision of the state's lieutenant governor to keep the measure off the ballot on grounds it was substantially the same as a law recently passed by the Alaska Legislature. The Alaska Supreme Court held that the lt. governor erred because the initiative and the measure were not substantially the same, because the initiative, unlike the new legislatively-enacted statute, did not provide for any temporary Senate replacement pending a special election. That is, under the initiative the Senate seat remains vacant until the special election is called, and the governor has no power to give the benefit of incumbency to a temporary appointee.
None of this was clear to me by looking at the Alaska Code, because the provision on vacancies remains part of the Code. (The initiative apparently was drafted before the code provision added by the state legislative statute, so the initiative did not call for its repeal.) So in the event Senator Stevens must be replaced, this conflict will have to be resolved, and the courts will have to confront a 17th Amendment argument, at least as to temporary replacements.
On a practical level, should Governor Palin have the opportunity to appoint a temporary successor, she should avoid any temptation to appoint herself; self appointed replacement Senators rejected by voters in the following election litter the history of the nation.
I agree with Professor Hasen that the Senate could expel Senator Stevens regardless of the intervening election.
I also must note that I agree that Governor Palin would be a fool to appoint herself. My prediction is that 6 months from now, the junior senator from Alaska will be its current lieutenant governor, Sean Parnell.
Are you sure? I heard he was appointing her to advise him on Nafta.
Governor Palin should call for an open election. She can ring up Frank in Fairbanks and see if he's available to fill-in for 30-90 days (he can bunk with Lisa in DC) with the assurance he won't run. She can even agree to fly him there on the McCain-Palin "Country First" Express (which is probably being reliveried as "FedEx" even as we speak).
If she screws that up, she'll get another shot when Young's seat comes available...
That's funny, I heard she will be teaching geography at the University of Alaska.
She really does scare the liberal elite, doesn't she?
Go, Sarah!
What does this mean?
Most people I have spoken with know that Stevens is the senior Republican senator, and that this is good for the state. Some of these wrongly believe that if Stevens is expelled, his successor will somehow inherit his seniority. Even so, and assuming that we elect our senators on strictly parochial grounds, I have tried to convince people that a freshman majority senator has more influence than a senior minority senator. And it is likely that the Democrats will have a senate majority for at least six years.
I have a couple of legal questions surrounding Sen. Stevens, that I would be most interested in having some opinions about. (1) There was some discussion (IIRC on this site) on a possible Constitutional challenge to the prosecution, on the grounds that the reporting requirements were of the nature of the Senate imposing discipline upon its own members, and therefore are not justiciable outside of the Senate itself. Has Stevens asserted this defense, or is he likely to? If he does, is there any possibility of success? (2) Assuming Stevens is eventually expelled from the senate, can the governor appoint herself to the vacant seat?
Amused? Yes. The reports coming out from inside the campaign of just how stupid, self-centered, and dishonest she was are absolutely delicious.
Blaming others for the clothes expenses when you directed them and actually spent more than was reported? Not being able to name the three countries that make up North America? Not knowing even basic civics? Not knowing the difference between a country and a continent? Wow. Just wow.
Well, it's your press, dear.
Yep- too many wives, and fuses on his shoes.
One in a row, Helen.
You are being very unfair, you are assuming that she knew that the NA in NAFTA was North America.
Uh, Angus, you need to get out your Atlas and study up - yes, Canada, USA, and Mexico are the three LARGEST countries in North America, but even under the most restrictive definition in use (well, except for the fringe view that Mexico is part of Central America, which these folks separate entirely from North America), North America includes all of Belize and most of Guatemala. Under the most common view, North America includes Central America, down to either the Panama Canal (at the narrowest part of the isthmus), or the Panama Columbia Border (taking the practical view that a Country should be classified, to the extent possible, as entirely within one continent), and so includes not only Belize and Guatemala, but also Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and most or all of Panama. That is exclusive of all of the Caribbean nations which are usually (but not always) categorized as separate from North and South America.
Questions: (1) Who is saying what? (Give me names.); (2) Once you have provided those names, give me a reason to think that this is anything other than c-y-a. "It's her fault, not mine." I remeber Dick Darman, even if you don't.
Your comment doesn't seem to go along with that, so I'm going to dismiss it as internet rantings without any proof.
Had Palin made this sort of mistake--to wit, there are "three countries" in North America--whatever would Obama supporters have said about her on VC? Hmm.
I still have to correct people on Dan Quayle's "gaffe" about Latin Americans speaking Latin; never happened. Or Bush II's comment to the visiting president of Brazil expresing surprise that Brazil had blacks. What's the source? Seems to have been invented a year or so after the meeting.
So, are you scared of Palin? I dunno. But your side is trying to give her the Quayle Treatment. So I suspect the answer is more "Yes" than "No."
Stevens did make this argument, which was rejected by Judge Sullivan. In the broad way that Stevens framed the argument, it seems to me clearly foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. There is a somewhat narrower version of the argument, which focuses on the fact that the prosecution is attempting, in effect, to enforce a Senate rule, rather than a statute. This argument, though, is contrary to DC Circuit precedent.
However, Stevens does have some potentially strong arguments for appeal, particularly in regard to the charges that he failed to report “liabilities” on his financial disclosure reports.
I have discussed these issues at some length at www.pointoforder.com
I'm still debating on the best term used by someone from inside her own campaign to describe Palin: rouge, diva, whack-job, Wassila hillbilly. . . .
And yeah, it's funny now, but kind of in the way that "Alaska maybe still elects convicted felon as Senator" is funny.
I had plenty of time just listening and watching Palin already to confirm that she was either a) dumb, b) poorly informed about the world outside of Alaska, or c) both.
OK. Care to amend your count of countries in the continent on which the USA is currently kept?
Who said they believed they were true?
Well, you said:
Amused? Yes. The reports coming out from inside the campaign of just how stupid, self-centered, and dishonest she was are absolutely delicious. (e.a.)
"Reports" doesn't suggest "rumors." Or "slander."
Yes, there are always recriminations after losing campaigns. But I worked on the Gore and Kerry campaigns, and while there was much gnashing of teeth and second-guessing strategy after their respective losses, there was nothing like these attacks on one of the two members of the ticket by sources in the other member's camp.
For some of us (e.g., me), the attacks on Palin tend to confirm what we already thought of Palin. For others, (e.g., you), these attacks fit the narrative that Palin has often been unfairly attacked. I won't try to convince you about Palin's substantive merits.
But again, my point is that this level of vitriol between Prez and VP camps/supporters after a loss is quite unusual.
Yes.
what gives credence to virtually every rumour/report is that they reflect badly on the McCain camp itself in its failure to properly vet Palin. Or at least on the members of the McCain camp who participated in the selection decision. If this circle was incredibly small, perhaps what they are trying to say is "if only I had been included in the process, we never would have made such a decision", or they are just amazed they could have been so negligent.
I would most like to know who suggested proximity to Russia as evidence of foreign policy experience. Did she think it up on her own? If so, After she used it in the Gibson interview, did no one think to give her a better answer before Couric?
Given that the answer was parallel to Tucker Bounds - national security experience as a result of being head of Alaska National Guard, I suspect she was given the Russia answer. but i'd love to know.
For others, (e.g., you), these attacks fit the narrative that Palin has often been unfairly attacked.
I concede that that is one narrative. But it in't "my narrative." (Although since you didn't specify who did the unfair attacking, the statement is certainly true: she was unfairly attacked by Anrew Sullivan and so forth.)
My narrative is that the MSM did not scrutinize the other side at the same level. Not even close. I don't know that Obama knows very much, and I'm not willing to take him on faith. I know that Biden doesn't know much, since I have watched endless hours of tape from SFRC hearings. He really is embarrassing. And unlike Palin, he's been at it long enough that there's no good explanation. Except, perhaps, that he's not all that bright, or all that serious. Hard to tell.
what gives credence to virtually every rumour/report is that they reflect badly on the McCain camp itself in its failure to properly vet Palin.
You surely don't mean to say that they do so even if they are not true?
See my post above about Quayle. Unlike Palin, he wasn't too swift. But the "rumor/report" about him being ignorant of the existence of the Spanish tongue gives no credence to anything. Except my assertion that people will believe dumb things about people whom they consider dumb.
But I'm a Gen-Xer, so my ear is alwways attuned to irony.
So: Stevens goes to jail (and presumably can't vote in the senate, since he physically can't get there). Democrats tell the Republicans they will vote to expel if and only if every single Republican senator votes to expel. At least one Republican senator refuses. Any options left for getting rid of Stevens?
Your point is that they have the "ring of truth" to the hearers, because they already believe
I'm trying to say that because they also reflect badly on the gossiper or his camp, they are more likely than not to be true.
Surely, the McCain camp are not so obtuse that they don't recognize that any criticism of Palin that should have emerged from a proper vetting reflects badly on the McCain camp, or portion thereof that selected Palin.
We have Angus and Johnny Cannuck, who believes that North America contains only three countries--despite the fact that most people(and indeed most schools that teach geography) count Central America as part of North America, as well as the Carribean.
We have Neurodoc, who is usually a very rational poster, suggesting that Palin would appoint Todd to the Senate because HEY, she is too dumb to remember that nepotism is oh so popular in Alaska and hey, there aren't other Republicans there anyway.
The PDS I am seeing this morning is pathetic.
Didn't this get discussed weeks ago?
Obama's plausibly been on the national Stage since the 2004 convention, more realistically since he began his presidential run in the fall of 2007. He was heavily covered during the primaries and continued to be covered during the election.
Biden's (and McCain for that matter) has been on the national stage for two decades. Most of his life has been spent in the public sphere.
For all practical considerations, Palin magically appeared on the national stage just over 2 months ago. It should be a no brainer why coverage of her was more intense over the first month or so of that period than it was over the other candidates.
We're very happy that you Hoosiers did yourselves proud.
That was a joke. neurodoc remains rational, even if his humor appeals only to some of us.
As to the outrage over federal dollars going to Alaska, what do you expect when the feds retain ownership to more than 90% of the land? Doubt that would be tolerated in the East, but many seem OK imposing it on others.
And in other news re Sen Stevens: Rep. William Jefferson [D-Corrupt] still walks free. No indictment, no trial, no censure. He gets a 100% free pass.
WHY? Because he's not a Republican.
Amused? Yes. The reports coming out from inside the campaign of just how stupid, self-centered, and dishonest she was are absolutely delicious."
The fact that you would just believe those reports instead of taking them with a grain of salt says more about you than it does Palin. Enjoy eight years of Obama.
Johnny Canuck, did they teach you in school that Central America was a separate Continent? When you were asked how many Continents there were, were yo required to list Africa, Asia, Europe, Australia, Antarica, North America, South America, and Central America? I knew that American public schools were incredibly bad in areas like world geography; are Canadian Schools also in the dumper?
Thanks for explaining your narrative. My point remains that it is quite unusual for this level of vitriolic sniping to go on between the "camps" of a Prez nominee and a VP nominee soon after an election loss. Note that this observation does not depend on whether any of the snipes/allegations/charges against Palin are true or not.
She scared me a lot when she was first appointed, and it looked like her brand of ignorance might be popular with the American people, and and that someone with her depth of knowledge might become president. I've heard conservatives say she could be briefed that, say, Africa was a continent not a country, but I think one needs a certain basic level of knowledge, and an intellectual curiosity (even owning a globe would be a step up for Palin), to be president. Bush had the knowledge, but not the curiosity, and he didn't work out too well. Palin seems to have essential no knowledge, and even less curiosity than Bush.
So she scared me a lot. But now it's obvious she'll never get into the White House, because no one but a rump of the Republican party wants to see her in power, so all that fear has been transformed into laughter.
I've heard this idea floated around a few times before. To ask a serious, non-Palin related, question does anyone know whether any of the original thirteen states had provisions voter initiatives at the time the Constitution was written? If they did (thoguh I'm guessing not) it might clarify this issue somewhat (no mention of something that was in practice at the time). If no one conducted plebsicties in 1789 then we're in one of those grey areas balancing literal text, intent and/or evolving standards.
We're very happy that you Hoosiers did yourselves proud.
Thanks! (Though I'm not sure why a non-Hoosier is this excited by Mitch's huge margin of victory.)
It is not unusual for words to mean something different when used for different purposes. Used in a political context, I have always understood North America to mean Canada, US and Mexico as distinct from Central America, with no overlap. In geography,"North America" and "Central America" are both part of "North America" when one is counting continents.
Sometime saying "Oops!You got me on that one" is the height of wisdom.
The GOP has built its coalition on an uneasy alliance between social conservatives and fiscal/government conservatives. McCain represented the latter to some extent, with his anti-earmark and somewhat smaller government tendencies. Palin was solidly in the former, as was Bush (as evidenced by his expansion of government and unwillingness to control spending).
In some sense, whoever wins this after-election fight feels that they will get to set the direction of the party going forward. These are fairly high stakes, far larger than simply deflecting blame. The question is, will whoever wins be able to put the coalition back together? I doubt if the fiscal conservatives will trust the socials to do the right thing after Bush's failures. I doubt if the socials will trust the fiscals much after their trashing of Palin and Bush, either.
The question is, can either win without the other? I think it would be nice to see somebody run with a fiscally conservative message and see how it plays out, but I think this year illustrated how difficult it is to make that stick. All you really have to do is say your huge new program won't raise taxes on the middle class, say it often enough, and you get a free pass, it seems. Social issues were the one place where an unambiguous difference could be discerned, but now we're told that the "culture wars" are retrograde and no right-thinking person would want to re-ignite them. I wonder which party that helps?
and sometimes trivial points are not worth defending, even if correct.
It's not McCain people trashing Palin - it's Romney people who moved over to the McCain campaign (which had very few staff of its own at the time McCain effectively won the nomination). Romney wants the nomination in 2012, and this is their way of preemptively taking out a major rival. Anonymous garbage fed to reporters has a long history in political infighting.
Nick
WHY? Because he's not a Republican.
Wrong--because the Bush Justice Department and FBI screwed up the search of his office. See also here. And he was indicted, and his trial was scheduled for December 2, 2008 but will probably slip until 2009.
So there is an indictment, a trial is scheduled, and no free pass. You were saying? WHY? Because you are wrong.
Agreed. And there are other forces at work. McCain has always had a tenuous relationship with Conservatives. This sort of thing was bound to occur IMO.
The amount of slander that has been dumped upon this woman is sickening.
driverprogramsohbetcinsel sohbet
cetçetsohbet odalarisohbet
cet odasiçetsohbetsohbet
sohbetchatkelebekfmkelebek fmkelebek radyocetcinsel cet
cet kanallaricet odasimuhabbetizmir sohbet
scriptcetçetmirc
chatcetchatsohbetsohbet odalarikelebek
California being a community property state, Feinstein's corruption had the effect of lining her own pockets at the same time she lined her husband's pockets to the tune of tens of $millions of taxpayer dollars.
There is certainly a culture of corruption among elected officials. But despite the psychological projection of Nancy Pelosi [D-Corrupt], the corruption is endemic in the Democrat Party much more than in the Republican Party.
[I'm neither a D nor an R. But I have eyes, and I can see.]
Don't know. Maybe they havn't checked her freezer. Ask the Bush Justice Department.