Brokaw is so ef n inept. He suggested on MTP that Palin could appoint Stevens replacement.

[LiberalFighter]

[rcrush]

1. What? She cant?

I Thought thats what the governor did.

[WeDidIt]

10. Read Your Constitution

Governors can appoint if the state legislature legislates it.

In Alaska, the governor does not replace. The law that changed it was passed in 2002.

[WindRiverMan]

12. He should know better.

WE Alaskans changed that little law after Frank Murkowski appointed his daughter Lisa to his Senate seat. Now a special election is required.

[Kittycat]

2. Depends on the state.

That could be correct. Unless of course the Democrat beats him, then it doesn't matter - because he won't be 'stepping down', he will have lost.

[hlthe2b]

4. NO, it is not.... AK law requires Gov. to call special election

within 60-90 days.


Absolutely ridiculous incompetence on Brokaw's part.

[L. Coyote]

3. Isn't that CORRECT?

But, there may be a problem. First, Stevens has to beat Begich (not happening) and then he has to resign (not happening), so the idea seems MUTE!

Alaska recently passed a law, that has yet to be legally tested, that impacts the possibility.

[hlthe2b]

5. If Stevens defeated...moot point. If Stevens wins and receives

jail (or even if he does not), the Senate is almost certainly going to vote him out. It is not automatic in the Senate that felony convictions mean they must leave the Senate, but they will surely address that. So, with a vacancy, (voluntary or not) Palin will have to call a special election; she can not name his replacement.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. But that may not hold up in court, because it came from a voter initiative

In this post from yesterday (which contains a correction about the earlier New Jersey case), I wrote about the rules which would apply if Senator Stevens decided to resign before his current term ends. I cited to provisions of the Alaska Elections Code that I took from the Alaska legislature's website.

It turns out, however, that voters passed an initiative in 2004 (in response to the then-governor appointing his daughter to a vacancy) which changed the method of filling vacancies. (The full text of the current Alaska statute is after the jump.)

But it gets better. Because this statute was passed by initiative, there's a question whether it violates the 17th Amendment, which provides in Clause 2: "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct." The people, through the initiative process, get no role.

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/012072.html

[PCIntern]

6. Moot? I'd like to 'mute' Brokaw, however...

[hlthe2b]

8. I too would like to mute Brokaw. In this case, Stevens' loss

would render the issue re: how his seat would be filled, a "moot point." (not sure if you were agreeing or questioning the spelling)

;)

[Trajan]

7. Wait a second ...

Stevens is in an election, and come Tuesday, IF Stevens loses, then whoever wins will assume the seat come January .... She cannot replace the winning candidate if they beat Stevens ...

Stevens can be replaced as a lame duck ... But that lame duck is GONE come next year ...

[hlthe2b]

9. yes.. that is what I have been repeatedly posting

but your comment is incomplete in not addressing what happens if he wins (however unlikely) see my posts above.