Massachusetts Law: Certificate Of Election Can't Come For At Least Ten Days (And Probably More)

[BeyondGeography]

From TPM:

With the Senate Democrats indicating that they will wait for the state of Massachusetts to follow its own procedural guidelines for certifying a winner in the Massachusetts special Senate election, the next question should be asked: What are the state's guidelines and procedures?

We asked Michelle Tassinari, the legal counsel for the state Elections Division, and she sent us over a list of the relevant statutes.

First of all, no certificate of election can be issued until at least ten days following a special election, and in real terms it would probably be at least 15 days. State law can allow for a certificate seven days after a special election -- but that law is trumped by the federal laws governing overseas and military ballots, which are triggered because this is an election for federal office, and which create a longer window in this election. The delay between election day and certification of the winner is provided for by state law in order for local election officials -- there are 351 local election offices in the state -- to certify their totals, and to count overseas absentee ballots that have not arrived until after election day. The deadline for absentee ballots sent from overseas to reach their local election offices is 5 p.m. on January 29...

So what does this all mean? Looking over these statutes, it seems clear that unless the result is very, very close (think Al Franken and Norm Coleman in Minnesota, or Scott Murphy and Jim Tedisco in NY-20), we should probably know on election night who has been elected when the vast majority of votes are counted. But even then, state law is clear that a certificate of election cannot be issued until at least 15 days later.

And if Senate Democrats insist on a completed certificate -- just as the Senate Dems did in their unsuccessful attempts to keep out Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL), and Senate Republicans did in their successful blocking of Al Franken during the Minnesota litigation -- that would keep the winner out for at least 15 days.


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/massachusetts-law-certificate-of-election-cant-come-for-at-least-10-days-probably-more.php?ref=fpblg

[geek_sabre]

1. unfortunately, Kirk is out as of Wednesday no matter what.

[Common Sense Party]

3. He is? Why? n/t

[geek_sabre]

13. precedent

1) Bill Owens (2009)
2) Roland Burris (2008)
2) Strom Thurmond (1956)


The first is most compelling, as it would look bad to deny Brown a seat after election, when Bill Owens was sworn in immediately before all the votes had even been counted to vote for the House bill.

[quiller4]

4. No. He is out when election results are certified. n/t

[jefferson_dem]

2. Do the Dems have the stones to pass health care reform before the new Senator from MA is seated?

Either way, I say drag the shit out if needed.

[Bitwit1234]

5. Since the democrats can point to the fact that

republicans would't let Franken be seated til Coleman got thru all his court challenges, there is no way they can rush this crap to be sworn in IF he wins. I just can not for the life of me see a grand old state like MA electing this absolute piece of you know what. He is worst than any republican in office.

They know what bush did. They know Obama and the democrats are trying to overcome the mess he made, so why in the hell would they throw up a barrier to democrats getting the job done. I just don't understand this is why this darn country is in a mess all the time. The stupid people jump up and down and act like kids and get turned on by a pin up model.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stevenleser]

9. You forgot the sarcasm tag. At least I hope you did.

If not, let me introduce you to the law of unintended consequences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequence

In addition to what is written in Wikipedia, let me make it specific to our circumstances. If Democrats cannot pass a bill (beyond the health care bill which is going to pass in one form or another regardless of tomorrow's vote) going forward due to not having a filibuster-proof majority, what is the option left to them? Craft legislation that is more likeable to at least a few Republicans so that bills can get passed.

Is that the lesson people wanted to teach Obama or the Democrats?

And sure, senate Democrats could monkey with the rules of the Senate. I think Biden was making subtle hints in that regard today. I strongly advise against anything like that. Someday, the Republicans may have a majority again. With their party discipline, they could ram the most horrific legislation imaginable down our throats.

[FVZA_Colonel]

14. Looking at the historical record, the only lesson I can imagine Democrats will take

is the need to move even further to the right.

[IndianaGreen]

7. The Blue Dogs and conservadems will peel off long before then

according to George Stephanopoulos on ABC News tonight.

They are scum and totally unreliable partners.

[FVZA_Colonel]

15. What's his basis for this?

It certainly sounds possible, but I'm wondering what his reasoning is.

[IndianaGreen]

16. In a nutshell, he thinks they are gun shy (George S, didn't use those words)

Particularly in the House, it will be impossible to get the magic 218 votes, if they think they will be punished by the voters in November.

[FVZA_Colonel]

17. If that's really the case, hopefully Pelosi can convince maybe 2 or 3 over 218 to support it,

and let those who feel most vulnerable vote against.

I pray it wouldn't come to that, but it might.

[Imajika]

8. Just stop...

..the Democrats aren't going to pull any of these gimmicks.

If Brown wins, the White House and Democrats in Congress may toy with some of these ideas such as voting before Brown can be seated, or reconciliation, or voting out Health Care reform in the House word for word as it is in the Senate, but none of that is going to happen.

This is why a Brown win in Mass would be such a complete disaster. The guy is literally running AGAINST Healthcare reform while campaigning for the "Kennedy seat". Moderate and Conservative Dems will literally abandon the bill in droves if Coakley loses.

It is simple. If Brown wins, healthcare is dead. Period.

[stevenleser]

10. Sources and evidence for this?

All the indications I am getting is that we will get HealthCare Reform regardless of the vote tomorrow. Tomorrow could cause the worst possible iteration of it, i.e. the senate bill you mentioned, but we would get a bill.

[impik]

11. If that's true, then the Dems should end negotiation tomorrow and vote

by the end of the week.

[stevenleser]

12. The bill has to be scored by the CBO which takes 1-2 weeks (nt)