A jury has found Alaska Senator Ted Stevens guilty on seven felony counts of making false statements about gifts he received. The deliberations took five hours. Despite the verdict, Senator Stevens insisted he is innocent, decried alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and announced that he will appeal the verdict. In the meantime, he is still running for reelection to his Senate seat. In my view, Stevens should have withdrawn from the race months ago, but it's not too late. When even the RedState guys are endorsing your Democratic opponent, it's time to throw in the towel.

The Politico raises the question of whether Senator Ted Stevens, now that he is a convicted felon, can vote for his own reelection to the U.S. Senate. Under Alaska law, those convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude are disenfranchised. So, it seems, whether Stevens can vote depends on a) whether making false statements constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude, and b) whether the disenfranchisement becomes effective upon conviction, or only after sentencing and entry of the judgment. Another wrinkle, The Politico notes, is that Senator Stevens may have already voted absentee because he's been stuck in D.C. for his own trial.

Meanwhile, Rick Hasen notes that were Senator Stevens to resign, Governor Palin would appoint a successor. Were Stevens to resign after the election — say, in January — Palin would still pick a replacement, but would also have to call a special election to fill out the remainder of the full Senate term. As for what if Sen. Stevens were to withdraw from the race (fat chance), Alaska law appears to be silent about how to deal with a candidate's withdrawal so close to the election.

UPDATE: More from Rick Hasen here, including a potential constitutional wrinkle in Alaska's rules for filling Senate vacancies.