I've spoken highly of our highest court before, most specifically with regard to their ruling releasing Steve Branchflower's Troopergate report, but this blog entry by Andrew Halcro explaining Alaska's "special election" law, fills my heart with pride once again. Alaska Supreme Court, I :loveya: LOVE YOU.
http://www.andrewhalcro.com/test_1#commentA Special Election? The Law.
As the votes in the race between Mark Begich and Ted Stevens for the United States Senate continue to be counted, there has been much debate about process of a special election.
Today on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, Governor Sarah Palin was asked if she would appoint herself to the seat if a vacancy occurred. She told Blitzer that would be "egotistical and arrogant," going on to add that she wouldn't do it.
Legally, is it even possible for the governor to appoint herself or someone else to the seat prior to a special election that must be held within ninety days of the seat becoming vacant?
No.
In 2002, after the appointment of Lisa Murkowski to the United States Senate by former Governor Frank Murkowski, a citizens initiative to change the way U.S. Senate vacancies were handled was filed.
After getting the required number of signatures, plus thousands and thousands more, the iniative was certified and approved for the November 2004 general election ballot.
In the spring of 2004, the Alaska State Legislature attempted to short cut the citizens initiative. The legislature passed a bill that they argued was the same as the citizens initiative in the hope that it would be taken off the ballot. (State law says that if a legislature passes a law that is substantially similar the initiative can be removed from the ballot.)
Although the legislature's bill called for the seat to be filled by a special election within ninety days similar to the initiative, it also allowed the governor to appoint a temporary replacement for the ninety day period before the special election was held.
The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the law passed by the legislature was different from the citizens initiative allowing the measure to remain on the November ballot.
IN THE "TRUST THE PEOPLE" CASE, THE ALASKA SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE LEGISLATURE'S BILL AND THE INITIATIVE WERE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR (BECAUSE THE INITIATIVE ABOLISHED THE GOVERNOR'S RIGHT OF APPOINTMENT AND THE BILL DID NOT). AS A RESULT, THE INITIATIVE STAYED ON THE BALLOT, WAS PASSED OVERWHELMINGLY BY THE VOTERS, AND DISPLACED THE LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT.
Did the initiative eliminate the ability for the governor to appoint a temporary replacement?
YES.
SOME PEOPLE MAY ARGUE THAT A RIGHT OF APPOINTMENT STILL EXISTS, BUT THE DECISION IN THE "TRUST THE PEOPLE" CASE IS UNAMBIGUOUS WITH RESPECT TO THE INTENT OF THE INITIATIVE HAVING BEEN TO "STRIP" THE GOVERNOR OF THE POWER TO MAKE AN INTERIM APPOINTMENT (THAT'S THE COURT'S EXACT WORDS).
ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED IN THE "TRUST THE PEOPLE" CASE WAS THAT THE INITIATIVE WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF LEAVING THE STATE WITHOUT SENATE REPRESENTATION, AND WOULD LEAVE THE COUNTRY WITHOUT A FULL COMPLEMENT OF 100 SENATORS, FOR UP TO 90 DAYS.
THE COURT REJECTED THAT ARGUMENT, THOUGH, AND STATED THAT THAT WAS A MATTER OF POLICY FOR THE VOTERS TO DECIDE, NOT A LEGAL ISSUE FOR THE COURTS.
If a vacancy does occur, the United States Senate seat will remain vacant until a special election is held.
How might that work?
A special election would be a wide open race that anyone who pays the filing fee would be able to take part. Since there would be no primary race, you could very well have two, twenty or two hundred candidates on the ballot.
----------------
One of the commenters suggests that federal law may trump our state law, should anyone ever contest it, but for now at least, this is how it stands.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
