KY update, Woodward denied Senate seat

[ChicanoPwr]

Woodward denied Senate seat
Democrat asks judge to force recognition
http://www.courierjournal.com/localnews/2005/01/05ky/A1-seum0105-8316.html

By Joseph Gerth
and Mark Pitsch
The Courier-Journal

One day after the start of the 2005 legislative session, the voters of Jefferson County's 37th District still don't have a state senator to represent them.

In a day of debates — in the Senate chambers and in a Franklin County courtroom — the Republican-controlled Senate refused yesterday to seat Democrat Virginia Woodward, and a Franklin County judge declined to rule immediately on whether the Senate must seat her.

The Senate, on a voice vote that appeared to mirror party lines, approved a motion to seat 37 members, but not Woodward. An attempt by Democrats to include Woodward failed on a separate voice vote.

<snip>

"Virginia Woodward should not be seated as a member of this chamber on the grounds that she was not the choice of the majority of the ... votes cast by the voters of the 37th Senatorial District," Senate Majority Leader Dan Kelly, R-Springfield, said.

[FreepFryer]

1. The $64,000 question: "Does two years equal six years?" She'll get a seat.

[bowens43]

2. Another case of Republicans violating the rules.

How typical. Republicans are ethically bankrupt.

[itzamirakul]

3. So THAT'S the way it is going to be...

one fight after another after another ad nauseum. Completely distracting attention from the filth they are conducting secretely.

[ashmanonar]

4. WHAA?

how can they even vote not to allow someone into their "club"? is there a law, or are the repubs just making it up?

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. Maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention, but boy does

it feel uglier top to bottom this year.

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. At least luck is on the Democrats' side

Per the article, the committee that will review the issue of seating Woodward is 5 Democrats/4 Republicans with a Democrat as Chair. Members names drawn out of a hat! LOL (good thing it wasn't an electronic vote!)

Their 'constitutional scholar' sure is a piece of work though...

"However, Paul Salamanca, a constitutional law professor at the University of Kentucky who also serves as Williams' lawyer, argued that the Senate has sole jurisdiction to decide who serves."

I guess that means they don't even need to hold elections anymore. :eyes: Straight from one of those damn liberal intellectual types. /sarcasm

[Blue State Blues]

7. We can't change the rules ... er .. the will of the voters ... er ...

I think I finally understand how this works.

When the candidate in the lead under unusual circumstances is a Republican, the mantra becomes, "We can't change the rules! The rules are important! The rules are the foundation of democracy! The rules! The rules! (Psst. What we're saying is that the other guy is trying to cheat. Damn Democrats. They just can't play by the rules. Lawless lefties. Yep, they want anarchy. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Pay no attention to the will of the voters.)"

However, when the candidate in the lead under unusual circumstances is a Democrat, the mantra is, "We must respect the will of the voters! The voters are important! It's about democracy! It's about the people's will. (Psst. It's those damn Democrats again. Trying to cheat the will of the people by following the letter of the law... er... silly arcane rules. Since when are silly rules more important than the will of the people? We care about the will of the people. Well, in this race we do. Really. Just don't ask us about the Washington Governor's race, OK.)

Sadly, the press never seems to call them on it.