After Lott: Dems Think Election Law Gives Them Shot At Winning Seat
In the wake of Trent Lott's announcement that he's resigning from the Senate, several news accounts have reported that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, a Republican, will immediately appoint a replacement -- and Barbour further announced today that a special election will be held to fill the seat on election day in November of 2008.
This would be a big boon to Republican efforts to hold Lott's seat. That's because it would allow whoever the appointee is the next 11 months to build up a record, raise money, and amass the advantages of incumbency in advance of the special contest.
But what does election law really hold?
National Dems who are scrutinizing the relevant statute say that they think that in fact it stipulates that the election is to be held within 90 days of the date of Lott's resignation, which he hasn't announced yet.
If true, that would effectively minimize the GOP advantage. Because of this -- and because an earlier special election might have a lower turnout -- it would give Dems a shot at winning that special contest.
And guess what -- it looks as if the Mississippi Secretary of State has confirmed that the special election is in fact supposed to happen 90 days after Lott's resignation date -- and not in 2008, as Barbour is claiming.
National Dems say that Barbour is ignoring election law to rig the game in their favor -- and that an earlier contest would play to their advantage. "Republicans clearly know they will have a very hard time holding this seat if they election is held in 90 days," a national Dem strategist tells TPM Election Central. "They get ugly when their backs are to the wall, and Barbour is just doing what they always try to do -- bending the law to suit their purposes."
Local Mississippi Dems are already upping the pressure on Barbour to follow the statute. “The Mississippi Code makes clear that if Senator Lott does indeed resign during this calendar year, as stated, then Governor Barbour must call a special election for within 90 days," says Mississippi Democratic Party chair Wayne Dowdy, adding that "we expect the Governor to uphold the law."
It's unclear whether Dems would be able to capitalize on the 90-day provision, because it's uncertain who will run for the seat and the situation remains in flux.
Barbour, meanwhile, is sticking to his vow to hold the election in November of 2008 -- meaning that a legal fight over the fate of the seat is likely.
Because of all this, the statute also creates an interesting dilemma for Lott. Dems note that the statute holds that there is a way around the 90-day problem: If Lott were to set his resignation date for some time next year, that would nullify the 90-day provision. That's because the statute says that if the resignation happens in a year when a Congressional election is already set to happen, the contest to fill the vacancy happens on that year's election day. That would help the GOP, because the special appointee would hold the seat for much longer before the contest.
But if Lott resigns next year, rather than in 2007, that will create a problem for him. That's because next year a new lobbying law will take effect requiring him to wait two years before entering the lobbying biz.
So, in effect, Lott has to choose between resigning this year, which would help his short term lobbying career, and resigning next year, which would help the GOP hold his seat.
Way too funny. It couldn't happen to a nicer, more honest bunch of guys. What comes around, goes around as they say. Way tooooo funny.
November 26, 2007 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know all of these Southern states look alike, but these developments are taking place in MISSISSIPPI not MISSOURI.
November 26, 2007 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assume you mean Mississippi, not Missouri with regard to the Sec of State?
November 26, 2007 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its Mississippi, not Missouri. Please!
November 26, 2007 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, yes, yes, fixed -- sorry. long day, fried brain.
November 26, 2007 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Lott's choices are:
Hint for the undecided: this is Bush's GOP we're talking about.
November 26, 2007 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, you might be more specific in your "in 2008" statement. There is no way that election is happening in 2007, it has to happen in 2008.
You say, "And guess what -- it looks as if the Mississippi Secretary of State has confirmed that the special election is in fact supposed to happen 90 days after Lott's resignation date -- and not in 2008, as Barbour is claiming."
Ought to say, "And guess what -- it looks as if the Mississippi Secretary of State has confirmed that the special election is in fact supposed to happen 90 days after Lott's resignation date -- and not in November 2008, as Barbour is claiming."
November 26, 2007 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Lott's choices are:
Is there any doubt? K Street is probably shopping for his welcome gift (= golf clubs!) even now.
November 26, 2007 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS question needs to be asked. See video: CNN/YouTube Republican Debate: Giuliani 9/11 Question Giuliani claims, "American foreign policy had nothing to do with the September 11th. September 11th happened because these people who hate us, hate us because of the freedoms that we have."
November 26, 2007 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The silver lining here is that we're about to get an honest view of Lott's motivation. If, in fact, he's resigning to "pursue other opportunities," postponing the effective date of the resignation until January 1, 2008 shouldn't pose any problems. But if he's simply trying to dodge a statute and cash in on his access without a waiting period, then he'll be gone before the first of the year. One hopes that NBC - and the rest of the national media - will pick up on this over the coming days. Lott can say whatever he wants, but if he resigns prior to the new year, he's a lying weasel.
November 26, 2007 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
They defenitly have a chance now that its being reported that Trent Lott had a relationship with a male escort...
http://perezhilton.com/?p=9452
November 26, 2007 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening.
November 26, 2007 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
If justice prevails, look out for this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Moore_(Mississippi_politician)
November 26, 2007 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps the Republicans shouldn't tossed his scrawny racist arse outta power.
Payback's a bitch.
November 26, 2007 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Law seems pretty clear:
§ 23-15-855. Elections to fill vacancies in office of U.S. Senator; interim appointments by Governor.
(1) If a vacancy shall occur in the office of United States Senator from Mississippi by death, resignation or otherwise, the Governor shall, within ten (10) days after receiving official notice of such vacancy, issue his proclamation for an election to be held in the state to elect a Senator to fill such unexpired term as may remain, provided the unexpired term is more than twelve (12) months and the election shall be held within ninety (90) days from the time the proclamation is issued and the returns of such election shall be certified to the Governor in the manner set out above for regular elections, unless the vacancy shall occur in a year that there shall be held a general state or congressional election, in which event the Governor's proclamation shall designate the general election day as the time for electing a Senator, and the vacancy shall be filled by appointment as hereinafter provided.
(2) In case of a vacancy in the office of United States Senator, the Governor may appoint a Senator to fill such vacancy temporarily, and if the United States Senate be in session at the time the vacancy occurs the Governor shall appoint a Senator within ten (10) days after receiving official notice thereof, and the Senator so appointed shall serve until his successor is elected and commissioned as provided for in subsection (1) of this section, provided that such unexpired term as he may be appointed to fill shall be for a longer time than one (1) year, but if for a shorter time than one (1) year he shall serve for the full time of the unexpired term and no special election shall be called by the Governor but his successor shall be elected at the regular election.
November 26, 2007 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just FYI: It's still tagged "MO-SEN". Tough day, I guess...
November 26, 2007 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
To whoever said to keep an eye out for Mike Moore - bingo. He is the Dems' best, and perhaps only, shot at winning that seat.
November 26, 2007 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The gay escort story would really be something...
http://bigheaddc.com/2007/11/26/trent-lott-fallout-the-gay-escort-who-knew-too-much/
November 26, 2007 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe somebody should be looking into the Larry Flynt story today and Trent's sudden Swan Song.
November 26, 2007 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that there is a 3rd option. If Lotts resigns this year and Barbour still appoints a replacement the Senate could rule to not seat the replacement citing that Mississippi law calls for a special election, throwing it back in Barbours lap to set a date for an election.
Would Reid have the balls to do that? Only time will tell.
November 27, 2007 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
We need a parliamentary expert to sort that out. If Barbour appoints someone then the Senate will be hard pressed to refuse to accept him on the basis that it thinks Barbour will not follow the law in terms of holding an election later -- maybe Barbour has already tipped his hand on this.
If Barbour announces he will not follow Mississippi law regarding the special election, then there would be at least a prima facie basis to deem the appointment illegal.
November 27, 2007 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Best case scenario:
The election happens this year, the democratic candidate wins and the GOP steals it through fraud anyway.
If they can do it in the presidential election, what makes anyone think they won't do it here?
November 27, 2007 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have succumbed to a bad print journalism habit.
"National Dems who are scrutinizing the relevant statute say that they think that in fact it stipulates"
Cut that down to "In fact it stipulates". You can read the election law yourself, it's crystal clear.
FYI, Drone, stealing an election is hard work, has to be set up individually each time, and so they won't be *prepared* to steal a special election within 90 days. :-)
November 27, 2007 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe both the House and the Senate have pretty complete power to certify their own members' credentials (or not). But regardless, I would tend to regard Lott's seat as pretty safe Republican no matter what happens.
The chief benefit of Lott's resignation for Democrats is more likely to be just the fact Senate Republics are losing one of their wiliest and most experienced players. I sincerely doubt that they would have dug themselves as deep a hole and positioned themselves as poorly going into the election year as they have if Lott were still calling the shots. I've seen what I thought were a few subtle confirmations of that notion from him too, in interviews and maybe one speech in the past year.
Don't forget that Lott was forced as leader out on ideological grounds. That dust-up over the Strom Thurmond thing provided the opportunity but the long knives, we later learned, were all sharpened up and placed within arm's reach well in advance of that. The more rabid ideologues in the Senate and the White House wanted him out and were apparently already moving against him when that baby landed on their door step.
Whatever else you could say about Trent Lott (and believe me, I have a list) he's considerably saner than the last two people they've picked for his old job, both of whom I tend to regard as borderline psychotic. Lott may be evil but he's quite a few miles farther north of that border then either of those two clowns. With him gone, there's going to be one fewer steadying hand around to potentially save Senate Repub's from themselves. The fact that he's leaving, could be an indicator that they just aren't very interested in being saved right now.
November 27, 2007 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink