As long as this is bumped anyway, the judge in Fairbanks on Tuesday moved the case to Juneau, citing that he did not want to take any chances of possible damage/loss of ballots if they had to be moved to the court. The new judge in Juneau on Wednesday set an expedited hearing for this Wednesday.
Miller’s lawyers, of course, argued, “What’s the rush?”
Miller is, in my opinion, burning every bridge for future success in electoral politics in Alaska behind him. Not only burning the bridges, but setting off dynamite in the piers and bulldozing the banks in.
Judge Carey has ruled that misspelled write-in votes count under Alaskan law. He also mentioned that it didn’t matter which way he ruled, as even throwing out all the challenged votes still leaves Murkowski with a victory.
He has stayed the ruling until Tuesday, to give Miller an opportunity to appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court.
Gov. Parnell, meanwhile, is exploring the possibility of appointing an interim Senator if the Miller camp continues its campaign of obfuscation and fairy tales. Presumably, such an appointment would go to Murkowski, as otherwise she loses her seniority anyway, and why bother?
My impression is that Miller is losing support amongst Alaskans who are not named Palin or DeMint by bushel baskets every day. He’s showing himself to be the quintessential sore loser. I’d wager that if the courts ruled that the election should be recontested, he’d finish below McAdams.
I would be so happy if he manages to drag his feet until after the new senate is seated, and even happier if some piece of generally-Democratic legislation manages to pass the Senate by one vote in that window.
It’s certainly no surprise that Palin supported him without bothering to check on his background. It’s just the latest in a pattern of supporting people with ethics and qualification problems going back to when she was mayor. She shoots from the hip, making messes that others have to clean up. It’s the reason she would be a catastrophe on the national level.
In fact, it has not. The stay of certification issued by the federal judge is still in effect. This is a decision (already reported in this thread) that Miller’s appeal is groundless, and it has itself been stayed until Tuesday to allow time for an appeal.
Does Lisa Murkowski have to be certified by Jan 1 or maybe Jan 15 to save her seniority and committee assignments?
Alaska needs a senator with seniority to protect their interests. Regardless of politics, it makes little sense to cripple someones effectiveness merely because some jerk won’t concede. That’s a little like cutting off ones nose to spite their face.
She needs to be available to be sworn in on January 3rd, the date the 112th Congress begins, in order to save her seniority. Committee assignments are up to her party.
I’m skeptical the party would strip the seniority away from an incumbent just because someone was challenging the election results. Surely that’s happened before. Are there any precedents that anyone knows of.
If her election is not certified by noon on January 3rd, she won’t be a Senator.
Yes, most of her party has been sympathetic; she was not stripped of her committee assignments and rankings when she launched her write-in campaign, she was not expelled from the party. Yet unless you’re Strom Thurmond or Robert Byrd or some other senile old fart, seniority plays an extremely important role in the Senate.
So if Norm Coleman had come out ahead on the recount mess with Al Franken – which took, I dunno, six months? – he would have lost his seat and his seniority while the case was going through the courts? He would have been booted back to freshman Senator?
Yes, consecutive time as a Senator is the major factor. He’d be exactly where Franken is now - six months behind the rest of his class in seniority.
If by chance, Coleman had been sworn in on the same date as another Senator who had never served in the Senate before, he’d have seniority over him/her, due to prior service in the Senate, but not over those freshman members of his class who were sworn in earlier.
Not really. I’m looking for something to substantiate that an incumbent senator will lose seniority simply by virtue of a challenge to the election results that drags on in the courts past January 3. Is a sitting senator sworn again every two year election cycle? Or every time he/she personally faces re-election?
I would be surprised more elections don’t get contested, and specifically for the reason of disrupting the senators’ senior status. If course this reason would not be publicly stated.