If an official is in the process of being impeached but has yet to be convicted, does their re-election negate the impeachment?
So imagine it’s 2020 and Pence is being impeached for ‘high crimes & misdemeanors’ - specifically mopery but that’s irrelevant 
- and he gets re-elected as VP. Does his re-election stop or negate the impeachment process? To what extend does ‘the people have had their say’ come into it?
It has no effect whatsoever. The impeachment proceeds anyway.
I don’t think it’s the reelection per se that would stop the impeachment, but the simultaneous end of the Congressional Session. The new Congress would have to start over. Pence being reelected would not be a bar to the new Congress acting. (I assume you’re thinking along the lines that the “will of the people” has spoken)
I would expect “the people have spoken” doesn’t come into it at all. IANAL, but I’ve never heard of some exemption from impeachment because of an election.
However, it would be the end of a Congressional session and unsigned bills die at that point. Not sure if the same would occur with impeachment procedures.
For the most part, impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.
So let’s amplify this a bit. Suppose the House impeaches before Congress adjourns. Can the new Senate try that impeachment or must the House impeach again?
Impeachment is not a legislative matter, so I’m inclined to believe that the Senate would be able to just pick it up from there. My question is if they’d be able to “Garland” the process.
That seems to be the case (that the Senate can try the case). Bill Clinton was impeached by the 105th Congress during a lame-duck session on December 19, 1998. The Senate of the 106th Congress held a trial in January and February of 1999 and ultimately voted against conviction on February 12, 1999.
We have a precedent! In fact, it was the very first impeachment in U.S. History.
On March 2, 1803 the House impeached Judge John Pickering. They had debated whether they should proceed that late in the session, but went ahead any way. They sent notice to the Senate on March 3, and then adjourned. The senate received the notice, and then adjourned as well.
March 4 was officially the beginning of the new Congress, but they didn’t get around to meet until Oct. 17. Eventually they tried Pickering and convicted him.
Unless they’ve since enacted a different rule, precedent says impeachments carry over to the new Congress.
ETA: Okay, so there are TWO precedents.
Ah, perfect.
Oh. I thought you would be asking whether you can be reelected after an impeachment (and conviction). In that case, it depends on the actual sentencing–you may be barred from seeking federal office again.
What’s interesting is what happens if the people ignore that and vote for them anyways. Being eligible for office doesn’t preclude you from being elected. Assuming the Courts don’t invalidate the results and the elector still vote for the ineligible party, the 25th Amendment kicks in, and the newly sworn in Vice President becomes (Acting) President.
If by that you mean just refusing to take any action, neither finding the person innocent nor guilty, I don’t think so. That’s an action by the presiding officer, who is typically the President Pro Tem (or the Vice President, but in practice he almost never actually presides), but in the event of impeachment, the presiding officer is instead the Chief Justice.
Not quite. CJotUS is only the presiding officer when the President is impeached. Interestingly the VP would be presiding officer of his own trial by a strict reading of the Constitution.
The Chief Justice doesn’t get to show up and preside until the Senate, in its absolute discretion, chooses to schedule a trial. If it decides not to, there is nobody who can make it.
Why is it the Senate’s prerogative to schedule the trial, instead of the trial’s presiding officer?
No one can enter the chamber without an official invitation, as we just saw with Trump’s SOTU speech. The branches take their prerogatives very seriously. Every aspect of a Senate trial would conform meticulously to formal protocols.
How did they handle it with Clinton? Did the CJ just show up one day in the Senate chambers and say “Trial starts today because I say so” or did the Senate pass motions and put it on the Senate’s calendar?
OK, let’s go to the actual Senate rules on the subject.
YMMV, but as I read this, no Garlanding is permitted.
This answers one earlier question. The Chief Justice will be given a request to attend at a fixed time and place.
The wording at the beginning puzzles, however, because modern practice is that a VP who becomes President is the President, not the VP acting with the powers and duties of the President. I suppose this could reflect a temporary raising of the VP through the 25th Amendment, though.
The Presiding Officer of the Senate is mentioned multiple times but never defined here.
A quasi-question stems from article III.
I understand the wording is legalese to cover all bases, but I’m wondering what needs would keep the Senate in session after the final judgment. Does this mean it can go back to its normal business or have such aftersessions been necessary on the past?
The presiding officer of the Senate is extremely weak. Even if, somehow, he showed up and scheduled the trial, the Senate could overrule that by a simple majority. The Senate is the jury in an impeachment trial, but it’s also the judge. It determines the facts, the law, and the procedure.
Even so, the Senate can vote by a simple majority to “interpret” a rule to mean something else. This is the “nuclear option” that has been used against the filibuster.