I mentioned during Lott’s reelect that I didn’t think he’d serve out his term.  He made sure Barbour could appoint his successor and build momentum to keep Mike Moore from running for an open seat.

The list for Barbour’s appointment will start quickly.  My short list would include, but not be limited to . . .

Chip Pickering
Governor Haley Barbour (himself)
Roger Wicker
Charlie Ross
Tate Reeves

Who else?

Hattip to Mississippi Dawg for being on top of this before everyone else.

I would say that picking Chip Pickering will be tough just because of what his reasoning was from not running for the House . . . family.  Being a Senator, as opposed to being a US Rep, is not exactly a cure for seeing your family more.

Wicker looks to be the odds on guy.

I’m pretty sure that Governor Barbour would make an appointment to the vacancy, and then there will be an election on the first Tuesday in November 2008.

If Barbour is to run for it himself, I would think strategically his best move is to appoint a true interim, who is getting a “crowning achievement” appointment, and who announces that they are truly an interim and won’t be running for the 2008 election.  I’m not sure that there wouldn’t be some public backlash on appointing oneself in January, and then running as well.  He’d still have the full power of the Governor’s role, and all the leige power that goes with it, during such a run.

Also likely is the Pickering appointment, with Pickering then running in 2008, I’d think.

Again, as I said with the potential Cochran retirement, 2008 is the best year for Republican retention, given the Hillary nomination for President on the Democratic side at the top of the ticket.

Yes, Wicker too.

Gallo mentioned Amy Tuck on SuperTalk this morning - Not sure how I feel about that

Even as a sitting Senator, she’d be tougher to defend against Moore in 2008 than Wicker or Pickering.  Can’t saying it would be impossible, it would just be a higher degree of difficulty.  She’d beat Musgrove however.

I would have initially said an interim that Gov. could trust not to run (how about Charlie Williams), then Gov. runs.  However, upon a few minutes reflection, and not knowing how soon special election would be - March? - I’m not sure Gov. would run.  If there is some sort of “deal”, why wouldn’t it have been next year?

Anyway, if it is Gov., then Sen. pro-tem race just got more than interesting, because that position serves as acting Lt. Gov. if Bryant were to move up.

Senator Wicker.  Sounds good to me.

I’m pretty sure the election would be in November.

No question.

Rep Pickering moved to Senate and he can still be a ‘family man’; Charlie Ross into Chip’s seat and they both then offer for election to a full term.

Opportunities like this don’t come often and Gov. Barbour with his years of GOP activity should readlily realize this scenerio.

Stog

People I may be wrong but we need to check the constitution on this one. Whoever Barbour appoints would serve until 2012, the remainder of Lott’s term, there would be no special election.

http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/23/015/0789.htm

This was the best way to keep the seat in Republican hands away from Mike Moore.

Wicker would seem to be the leading candidate with Chip out. I am pulling for Amy Tuck though.

If Amy gets it now and is up for election in 2012, Mike Moore can forget about it. As a matter of fact, he won’t even run.

I’m agreeing that the it should be checked.  Talking off the top of my head (which I’m want to do...).

why do we want Pickering there.

Republicans are in the minority in the Senate. He was already whining about being in the minority in the House and that was why he was getting out. You need to send street fighters to the Senate right now, not missionaries who can’t take it when they are on the weaker side of the aisle.

Wrong code section.

Reagan Dem.:  “wont” to do.

That too.

Here is the pertinent code section:
http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/23/015/0855.htm

MSMan:

I believe you are correct.  That is what I presumed was fact, and it appears that is so.

Looks like the Dems can’t touch this one.

I don’t believe Pickering will go for it though, he truly wants to spend time with family and to all of a sudden go back to politics does not seem like something he would do.

I stand corrected...though I still think the GOP presence is too strong on this one.

In reading the statute, do y’all interpret that to mean that the election would be held in the November ‘08?

I don’t have time to research all the code sections, etc. applicable to this situation.  It appears the the 17th Amend. to the U.S. Consti. says that the Gov. will appoint someone as interim, then call a special election, unless the state legislature provides otherwise.  It doesn’t appear that we have done that.

The Senator is elected in same manner as Rep.  Ms. Code 23-15-1031 and 23-15-1081.  In presidential election year - which I believe would be next year - the primary is in March, not June.  Logically - whoa, boy - the special election should be then.  Hitch up your britches, boys and gal!

Again, my caveat is that I am doing this very quickly and could be totally wrong.  Someone call SOS’s office and get an officially answer.

Very good, Towhead!  Didn’t see your post when I sent mine.  So much for search engines; never trust nobody!

Still Nov. is short time away for this election.  Maybe Charlie Ross knew something in holding off on announcing to fill Pickering’s seat?

Different question:  What’s Lott going to do?

If I read it correctly, the election would be in November.  Now, does anyone know if the special election will go through the primary process, thus mirroring our congressional elections next year?

I actually heard something about this a couple of weeks ago at a convention—thought about sending Alan an e-mail, but it struck me as an odd rumor.

Anyway, one of our DC lobbyists asked me if I had heard anything about Lott resigning.  She told me she had heard from several “insiders” that Lott would resign before the end of the year so that he and John Breaux (of Louisiana) could open up a lobbying firm in DC.

I found the notion of him and Breaux opening their own shop plausible, but not the notion of him leaving before his term was up.

Don’t know if that is the REAL reason, but I now give my original source a whole lot more credit than I did when I saw her 2 weeks ago.

I’d say that the March primary date would be prudent, given the cost of holding a special primary.  Moreover, having the early primary would be to the advantage, on the GOP side at least, of whomever the Governor appoints.

From what I have heard, Lott plans to go into lobbying.  As to who he is going into that with I do not know.

Barbour will appoint an interim within 10 days and the election will be held in next years general due to the fact that the resignation is occurring within 12 months of a general election.

Or so I think…

Long time reader, first time poster.

I’m no lawyer but as I read the Code, it suggests that if Lott resigns on December 31, then then the Governor would have to call the election in 90 days. If he resigns on January 1, then the election can be held in November.

Does that make sense?

That’s what it seems to say.  However, there would still need to be a primary election, which speaks to my last comment.

I’ve gotta think that Barbour appointing himself this soon after re-election is not gonna happen.  Plus, if he did eye Senate, I think this exact scenario will unfold in 2009 or so with Cochran.  Plus, that would really hurt him in the VEEP-stakes.

I think it’s Wicker as the most likely.

I believe that there are no primaries in special elections. So presuming there is no candidate that gets 50% plus one, the top two would face each other in a run-off. This is not unlike the Louisiana system.

Wicker vs. Pickering? Just kidding.

Is Merle Flowers in MS-1?  If Wicker takes a step up, he would have to be part of the conversation to replace Wicker.

No primary, no runoff.  Lott resigns 12/31, Gov. WILL set election on primary date.  (Neo is correct, if he had done it Jan. 1 or later, election would be Nov.) Pretty cool timing, ain’t no Dem. can run by March, especially when there’s not primary or runoff.

How many bets on one Rep. and several Dems?  The Dems. will split up the vote every time.

I hear Lott is resigning to be either the Ole Miss Chancellor or football coach.

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071126/NEWS/71126007

Election to be held in 2008. This is good news for Mike Moore.

I would think Merle is a front-runner, BUT there may be enough DeSoto candidates to water-down their vote giving it to someone from Wicker’s stomping grounds (the P-U-L area). That could make for 2 large, expensive primaries for the Republicans fewer than 6 mos. on the heels of statewides. So is the mantle of leadership.

I think the Mayor of Southaven (Davis) could give Merle a run for his money and I hope he does. He is a former state legislator.

http://www.southaven.org/page.cfm?pid=13&sid=12&ssid=223

I am starting the Draft Greg Davis campaign if Wicker runs for Senate. He vast experience as a mayor and state legislator and his relative youth make him a better candidate than Merle. If not Davis, then Nunnelee.

But in the back of my mind, I would like to see a nasty barnburner between Steve Holland and Merle Flowers.

But for Pickering’s comment about resigning for “family” reasons, he is obviously the odds-on pick.  However, that comment will be tough to reconcile publicly and in a contested campaign.

Pickering’s ‘family’ reasons can easily and quickly be explained away.  His family appears with him, when appropriate, and tells the public this is what his family wants.

Issue resolved.

Stog

If Barbour picks Pickering, then we would have to have a special election to fill the remainder of his short term and then turn around and have a primary and general election for the seat.

I agree, MM. I said “a” frontrunner for a reason. Greg Davis is strong.

All of this speculating about who is going to be appointed and what posistion that person leaves open is giving me a headache....

All I know, if you are a political junkie, this is a great time to be in Mississippi!

MattDev, you mentioned Tuck.  I find it hard to believe that Barbour would appoint a once Dem-turned-Repub that was at odds with him on so much.

Neo and Brush are right.  If his resignation is effective Dec. 31, the vacancy will occur in 2007, not 2008.  That puts the special election in the 90-day requirement, not the 2008 general.  No primary.  No interime appointment.

If the resignation is effective Jan. 1, then what Barbour wants to do with an interim appointment and an election in Nov. 2008 (reported on the C-L and linked by Mississippi Man) CAN happen.  But then Lott goes under that new “no lobbying for 2 years” deal.  That’s why he chose Dec. 31.

It’s a pretty short turn-around.  Who currently has the network and money to put together a decent run in a no-primary free-for-all that will be settled before the 2008 Mississippi Legislature is out of session?

I have a couple of interesting thoughts.  What about Dickie Scruggs?  He certainly has the loose cash, and he would love to jab it in the eye of Rs statewide.  He certainly has name ID.

Whoever Barbour appoints has to be able to win statewide.

AM, what would be the dynamics of two interim appointments?  Appoint one person for a few days and then get into 2008 and appoint someone else.  Is that feasible?

Chip should have enough ‘seed’ money and would easily be able raise any needed additional funds.

Lott was just on live TV from Hattiesburg and will be here in Jackson at 3pm.

My guess is all speculation will be over before the end of the week.

Stog

The word I’m getting from a very reliable source is that Lott will work government relations for Ole Miss.

As for a Pickering appointment, that wouldn’t make any sense because of what it would do for his open seat.  Election code does not allow for an appointment to that seat--it goes straight to special election within 60 days of the vacancy.  That would mean that there would be a special election before the primary, then a primary a week later, then a general in Nov.  That would be absolute chaos.

Alan, that’s a good point - The more I look at this, though, the more I get the feeling that Barbour’s appointment will truly be “temporary,” even considering his VP chances

What about Jim Herring for the “crowning achievement” appointment? Barbour fills the Chairmanship of the Party with his choice and gets a shot at the open Senate seat.

There would be a big mess and cash drain if either Wicker or Pickering are chosen.

If Chip is chosen, there would be:

A special election for his seat.
A primary election for his seat to soon follow.
A general election months later to fill the seat.
and a special election to fill the seat of Senator Lott

Pretty much the same scenario if Roger is chosen.

This isn’t based on MS Code but I bet that this is about right minus maybe one line.

To prevent choas, Barbour should choose Tate Reeves, Amy Tuck or some obscure caretaker like Tommy Robertson. He won’t pick a caretaker since that would be a XMas gift to Mike Moore. To be honest, the high profile Republican bench isn’t that deep unless he starts plucking recently statewide officials out of there seats in which only Hoseman and Reeves would fit the bill.

Good grief, this is like one of those world-record domino deals that we see on TV from time to time.

Just confirmed with the SOS that an effective resignation date of Dec. 31 DOES mean the 90-day turnaround, but that the special election CAN take place in conjunction with the March primary (saving the state thousands of dollars).

Barbour CAN appoint someone to sit in the position until someone is elected in the special.

Here’s where it gets more interesting.  Say Barbour appoints Pickering or Wicker.  Fine, they can take the position and run for it.  What about their congressional seats?

There is nothing in the MS Code that allows for the appointment of interim reps until a replacement is elected.  Sec. 23-15-853—“If a vacancy happens in the representation in Congress, the vacancy shall be filled for the unexpired term by a special election, to be ordered by the Governor, within sixty (60) days after such vacancy occurs, and to be held at a time fixed by his order, and which time shall be not less than sixty (60) days after the issuance of the order of the Governor, ...”

There is no language in the rest of the statute that references an interim appointment.

So, if P or W gets the appointment, and the appointment/resignation is made on, say Jan. 1, Barbour has 60 days to call for a special election, which has to take place within 60 days of his call.  He could time the call such that the special could take place during the March primary, like the special for Senate.  But like the Senate race, it will be a free-for-all.

And whoever wins that special will only serve the remainder of the term—they will STILL have to run in the March primary (putting their name on the ballot twice, which is just BIZARRE) AND in the general in March.

So here’s the new quandry—if you are a primary candidate for Pickering’s seat, and he is appointed to the Senate and HIS seat is vacated early, do you even bother with the special?  Is that enough momentum?  Is it a throw-away to serve the interim?  Would you be better off saving your money for the primary (which is at the same time) and the GENERAL?  Do you even throw your name in to the special, when it will be one of those crazy free-for-all specials and focus your attention and resources on the race that means a 2 year term?

Ain’t this great?

Haley just released a statement saying that he WOULD NOT be a candidate, nor would he appoint himself....

He is calling a special election for November 2008, and will appoint a Senator 10 days after Lott’s resignation is effective

If the vacancy occurs in 2007, Haley can’t do that.  The code is pretty clear.  And I don’t see Trent putting himself under a 2-year lobbying ban just to let Haley do it the way he wants to.

AM-

Thats what I thought, but got confused with the statement by GHB....

Like I posted earlier, this is so confusing and so many what ifs, it is giving me a headache.

I am wondering if people are going to get particular over the definition of “vacancy.” If Lott’s resignation is effective Dec. 31, there might be some who argue that the vacancy occurs the next day, which happens to be a whole different year.

I get that GHB wants things simple, but this is the MS Code we are talking about, which ain’t simple.

And even if they find a way to make the Sen. special in November (which I don’t see how they can), that doesn’t rid us of the special fun that could result from a Pickering appointment to Lott’s seat.

Yes.  Headache inducing.

Now that someone has brought up Herring’s name, I do hope Gov. Barbour or someone reporting to him is reading this.

No, no, no...not Herring. Wayne Dowdy sounds more like a true Republican than Herring does.

He’s not the person for the job, even if temporary and he agrees to not seek election. Please no.

Stog

Here is a scenario, if he appoints Wicker or Pickering, can those seats stay vacant until the next election, which would be until November…

Im not advocating that, but could very well see it happening.

All I know is that Haley ain’t dumb enough to put in a caretaker and put the seat at risk.

If we are going to go with the notion that Haley hates Amy Tuck, then the best choice would be Tate Reeves and Haley gets to appoint his successor as treasurer. This saves us from a constitutional quandry.

JacksonAM, you bet Dowdy, Hood and Moore “are going to get particular over the definition of “vacancy.” “

MS Dawg, I I just don’t ever recall a congressional seat any where in america that has stayed empty for nearly a whole year.

And governors don’t appoint congressman.

MS Dawg—I don’t think the House seat can stay vacant.  There is about a 120 day window where it HAS to be filled.  The statute says “shall be filled for unexpired term,” not “may be filled.” That means it has to happen.

- Vacancy occurs in House seat, Governor has 60 days from vacancy to call for a special election.
- Special election must be held no later than 60 days after the call from the Governor.

The Governor must appoint an interim Senator within 10 days of receiving notice of that vacancy.  So whoever gets the appointment will likely take office pretty soon after Lott is out, even though the code doesn’t say that the appointee has a set amount of time during which they must take office.  One would presume the appointee would do so when the US Senate goes back into session, which is early January.  The 2007 session started January 4.  I would think the latest they would convene would be Jan. 8.

So that means the VERY LATEST the special for the House seat could take place would be about May 6 (Tuesday, 127 days into 2008).  That’s WAY before November.

"JacksonAM, you bet Dowdy, Hood and Moore “are going to get particular over the definition of “vacancy.” “ “

Give them credit, it’s a better argument than the definition of “is.”

AM, the code says the ELECTION has to be within 60 days:

“If a vacancy happens in the representation in Congress, the vacancy shall be filled for the unexpired term by a
special election, to be ordered by the Governor, within sixty (60) days after such vacancy occurs, and to be held at a
time fixed by his order, and which time shall be not less than forty (40) days after the issuance of the order of the
Governor...”

“60 days” is not modifying the time of the order, but the time of the election, as evidenced by the placement of the commas.

Bryce, you pulled the old code language, and I think I misread the new language.  It actually isn’t making sense - read on ...

(code langiage from the SOS MS Code link, http://michie.com/mississippi/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=)

[From and after the date Laws of 2007, ch. 604, § 5 is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, this section will read as follows:]

(1) If a vacancy happens in the representation in Congress, the vacancy shall be filled for the unexpired term by a special election, to be ordered by the Governor, within sixty (60) days after such vacancy occurs, and to be held at a time fixed by his order, and which time shall be not less than sixty (60) days after the issuance of the order of the Governor, which shall be directed to the commissioners of election of the several counties of the district, who shall, immediately on the receipt of the order, give notice of the election by publishing the same in some newspaper having a general circulation in the county and by posting notice thereof at the front door of the courthouse. The order shall also be directed to the State Board of Election Commissioners. The election shall be prepared for and conducted, and returns shall be made, in all respects as provided for a special election to fill vacancies. 

(2) Candidates for the office in such an election must qualify with the Secretary of State by 5:00 p.m. not less than forty-five (45) days previous to the date of the election. The commissioners of election shall have printed on the ballot in such special election the name of any candidate who shall have been requested to be a candidate for the office by a petition filed with the Secretary of State and personally signed by not less than one thousand (1,000) qualified electors of the district. The petition shall be filed by 5:00 p.m. not less than forty-five (45) days previous to the date of the election.  There shall be attached to each petition above provided for, upon the time of filing with said Secretary of State, a certificate from the appropriate registrar or registrars showing the number of qualified electors appearing upon each such petition which the registrar shall furnish to the petitioner upon request. 

So, following the commas and such:

- the election must be within 60 days after the vacancy occurs
- but the election can not take place less than 60 days after the issuance of the order by the Governor
- and candidates must qualify not less than 45 days prior to the date of the special election.

SOOOOO—the effect of that is that the Governor must issue the order before the vacancy?  That’s hard to do in case of a death.

This change, which appears only to be changing the “40 days” to “60 days,” is dependent on the Laws of 2007 being approved under the Voting Rghts Act of 1965.  Anyone know if that has happened yet?  If it hasn’t, then this isn’t an issue, but it’s what the Leg. wanted to be the law for this situation.

It’s a poorly written piece of code, that’s for sure.  I can’t believe they really wanted candidates qualifying for an open congressional seat to have 15 days or less to think about it and gather signatures.

Congressman John Bell Williams was elected governor in November 1967 and took office in January 1968.  The special election to fill his House seat was held in February 1968.  Charles Evers led the first round but got less than 50%.  Evers then asked a court to declare the runoff provision invalid, which it refused to do.  Charlie Griffin, John Bell’s administrative assistant, beat Evers in the runoff.

The party primary was held in June 1968 and the general election that November.  State Sen. Ellis Bodron of Vicksburg lost the February special election, then lost again in the Democratic primary in June.

Congressman Jon Hinson resigned in April 1981, and the special election to replace him was held that summer.

So it would seem that the only way this would work is if the Guv issued the order the day of the vacancy and the election was held actually on the 60th day, which would present some problems if it happened to fall on a Sunday or national holiday…

Don’t look now, folks, but the world is watching. Michelle Malkoin, one of my blogging idolsw picked up the string front and center. Hits are off the charts.

Well, yeah, it would be hard enough to do right when you know a vacancy is coming up, can you imagine trying to follow that if someone died in office?  I don’t think you can.

I think the code section is badly written—I don’t think that comma after “Governor” should be there.  Once they change the “40 days” to “60 days,” that comma makes the timing nearly impossible.  Without that comma, the first “60 days” refers to the time the Governor has to make the order, not the timing of the election in relation to the vacancy.

I would think the intent of the authors of the new language was simply to give candidates a bit more time to campaign or something, but for the want of a comma strike, I think it’s a mess.

I’m surprised anyone would suggest Tate Reeves.  Barbour will never appoint him because he wouldn’t want his choice to lose in the republican primary and that is exactly what would happen with Reeves.

Eric Clark has issued a press release seeming to back Barbour’s time line for the election to replace Lott.  I don’t think that’s what the law says, assuming he resigns on Dec. 31, but hey ....

Oh, and that’s NOT the interpretation of the law I got when I called the SOS Elections Division earlier today.

From Election Law:

“There is already controversy over the date for a replacement election for Senator Lott. Gov. Barbour has issued this statement setting the date for Nov. 4, 2008. But The Hill reports : ‘The timing of Sen. Trent Lott’s (R-Miss.) resignation has opened legal questions about the date of the special election, which state officials were still trying to clarify Monday afternoon. Gov. Haley Barbour (R) said in a statement Monday that he would schedule the special election for the same day as the November 2008 general election. State law, however, appears to require an earlier date if Lott retires this year, as he said he would.’

“The relevant Elections Code provision is here. I agree with the reporter from The Hill that if Sen. Lott retires this year (as he has an incentive to do to be able to lobby his colleagues in one year, rather than two under the new lobbying law), Gov. Barbour would have to call an election in early 2008, not November. As I read the statute, the Governor has 10 days to issue a proclamation setting a special election after receiving official notice of the vacancy, and it must be set within 90 days from the time of the proclamation. The only exception to this rule applies when ‘the vacancy shall occur in a year that there shall be held a general state or congressional election.’ In that case, the election is set for the same as the general election date. So the key question is the date of the “vacancy,” not the date of the official notice or the date of the proclamation of the special election. If Lott indeed resigns in 2007, the vacancy is in 2007 and the election must occur under the 10/90 day rule described above.”

According to the New York Times, Lott must resign before December 31 in order to circumvent the new lobbying law.

This just in: A key booster (very reliable) for Mark Keenum called and told me that Keenum wants to put his name out for Senate and has people putting out feelers for his candidacy.

If you don’t know, Keenum is the USDA undersecretary and is Senator Cochran’s former Chief of Staff. He was practically the shadow Senator for a decade as the power force in Cochran’s office and could step in without needing on the job training. He would make a great caretaker or a great permanant Senator but I in Pickering or Wicker gets in, he will fold like a cheap suit.

Also, this source told me that Wicker’s office has been absolutely tighted lipped but one staffer said that he will absolutely be a candidate. I suspect a certain Mississippi based staffer put this out as Wicker’s chief of staff is the least likely person to ever leak anything.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=bios_mark_keenum.xml

Bio of Keenum. Again, the guy putting this info
out is very reliable but Keenum could fold in my opinion.

Something I’m trying to get cleared up, and maybe someone could help me:

If Lott resigns in 2007, and there is a special election in March- will Haley still be able to appoint someone until the special election?

I’m running for US Senator as a Republican!

God save us and our trucks from Amy Tuck.

HDMatthias

The revolving door provision, which doubles the revolving door period to two years, applies to members of the Senate who leave office “on or after the date of adjournment of the first session of the 110th Congress sine die or December 31, 2007, whichever date is earlier.”

Since the Senate will surely adjourn earlier than December 31, Lott’s resignation will have to take effect no later than the next to last day of the session, whenever that is.

Ditto, HDM!

McMillin for Senator! (and sheriff and chief of police)

This is the race Mike Moore has always yearned for.  The National Democratic Party sees Moore as their best chance of picking up this seat and will orchestrate a massive fundraising campaign for Moore with Scruggs & Friends doing the heavy lifting.  The prospect of “Senator Mike Moore” will equally energize the Republicans, so big bucks will get raised and spent in record fashion.

DO NOT underestimate Moore.  He’s the Bjorn Borg of Mississippi politics—retired at the absolute top of his game but prepared to come out swinging.  He has instant name recognition from one end of the state to the other and, last time I checked, his positive / negative ratings were off the chart positive.

I actually think Wicker would run a better race against Moore than Pickering, but either one will be fighting an uphill battle against a man who DESTROYED all Republican comers in FOUR consecutive statewide races (or was it five?)

Hey Al, I noticed Donna Ladd took another veiled shot at you and Michelle Malkin.  What’s up with that?

I agree with you, ReadyForAChange, that Moore will be the Dems best chance (though far from a slam dunk), and I think that GHB knows that as well. 

Given that, it makes the place-holder/crowning achievement appointment very, very unlikely in my opinion.  I also think that this makes a Charlie Ross appointment for the purpose that some suggest in that an appointment is a deserved consolation prize, unlikely too. 

GHB’s appointment will need to be the person that he thinks is most electable in the special election.  Pickering and Wicker are the most electable.  They’re also the two who have the best fundraising know-how and ability.

The pot behind Ladd’s shot.  Ain’t no “strings” there.  In fact, ain’t no nothing there.

Agreed on Moore as well.  I think that’s why Trent stayed in the game to bring about precisely this scenario . . . replacing him with a stacked deck instead of an open race.  Trent is definitely a party guy.  Otherwise he would not have run in 2006.

Pickering, if he accepts, is the safest political pick from a succession standpoint because his seat is the most R-leaning and there are a crop of good candidates ready to run.

HOTS, I saw that.  I know she’s bitter, bless her heart.  If I were pushing 50 and talking about hip hop and where to get the best tofu burger, I’d probably be lashing out too.

No big deal.  Everyone has a purpose.  Her’s is just to make me look good.

Our friends at Cottonmouth are waxing philosophical about Lott’s mid-term resignation essentially thwarting the will of the voters, etc. 

Here’s the deal . . . win some damn elections.  There is nothing in the world wrong about what Lott did or what Barbour will do to replace him.  Elections were won.  To the victors go the spoils.  That’s the way it works.

This liberal whining about the way things should be just galls me.  The laws are what they are and political reality dictates that people who win elections make decisions within that framework.  The end.

Alan, my man, you are correct.

As follow up on the Moore comments, I think that Musgrove (toe sucking and all) has been itching to run again for somthing, and I’d be surprised if he decided against such a run. 

I personally think Mabus’ day has long since passed him by, and he just enjoys hearing his name being mentioned.

I have heard in two seperate calls tonight that Dem insiders and pollsters are freaking out about a November 2008 election.  They know that running even a moderate Dem on a ticket with Hillary Clinton makes their chances go from slim to none.

Dowdy messaged it this way . . .

It is important that Mississippi
be represented in Washington by a senator who was elected by the state’s voters as soon as possible.

Translated . . .

Please don’t make us run on Hillary’s ticket!

RD, I agree on Mabus.  He was a guv and ambassador.  I don’t know if he has the stomach for it, but it would be interesting to see if he did.

I haven’t had time today to keep up with the “when” question on the special election.  Did anyone confirm when it would occur?  And did we get a confirmation that there would necessarily be no primary election?

I think the primary question has bearing on the Democratic side.  If there’s no primary, then the question remains for the Democrats pondering a run, as to whether to run if another prominent Democrat runs, or not. Meaning, would a Moore and a Musgrove run on the same ballot in the special election against a sitting Pickering or Wicker? 

That appointment certainly acts to “skinny” the GOP field in the special election.  If GHB appoints a person who is going to run for the office in the special, then there won’t be 2 prominent GOPers on the ballot, you can bet on that.

This brings another thought to mind, that I think my hunch is right on:  in the federal special, one doesn’t have to get a 50%+1 majority, but rather the candidate winning the plurality is declared the winner.  Isn’t that correct?  I seem to remember that Sen. Cochran had a 3 man race in the 1978 election, and I don’t think he won the majority, but rather the plurality.

Steve, I know you’ve got that info handy… what say ye?

And though Ronnie Musgrove is a HARD working campaigner, the personal hijinks, toe-sucking, etc., I think would just get hammered relentlessly in a LOOONNGGG 11 month campaign.  Moore is the guy on the D side, if he has the stomach for the fight.

The law is a bit inconclusive.  Barbour announced a 11/4/8 special election.  He will make an interim appointment.

There will be no primary, so your “skinny” analysis is dead on.

But Musgrove is absolutely itching to run for something.  I think he’s very disappointed that he didn’t run for office in the election cycle recently passed. 

He has a candidate’s ego, moreso that Moore, and I know that’s hard to believe.

Alan:  I realize Haley announced a 11/4/08 election, but doesn’t it appear clear in the law that if Trent’s term has at least 1 day of vacancy in 2007, there will be the special election in the spring?

Why is everyone on the Wicker/Pickering bandwagon? Doesn’t it make sense to appoint Ross? He just ran an excellent statewide campaign, has impeccable credentials, is a GOP Poster-Child, and knows the Legilative Process as well as anyone. This would not risk TWO open Congressional seats if Wicker gets the nod. Ross has the name id and know-how to run against, and beat Moore. Given 11 months as an Incumbent Republican would completely wipe out any fund-raising problems as well.

He just lost a state-wide primary. 

His credentials are good from the standpoint of his voting record, but his personality isn’t.  And the potential of putting a very, very vanilla Ross against pistachio Moore (especially if the election is in the spring) isn’t one that I’d relish, if I were GHB.

The GOP will hold both of those Congressional seats, if they’re both open.  2008 is a presidential, which means that the DeSoto November vote will be heavier than it was in 2007, and it’s high propensity GOP voters who will be turning out there.  This alone makes the 1st safe in 2008, even in a vacancy.

Ross does not currently have more name ID than either Wicker or Pickering, and quite frankly several other potential appointments.

Okay, so Desoto goes Wicker. The Coast goes Ross, even in a Spring vote. There is tremendous Coast support for Ross in any race not involing Phil Bryant. There is also big money out of State for Ross, even more so in a Senate Race, because of Tort Reform and Big Business. Ross also has organization built in and ready to go. The central part of the State would have to favor Pickering. I just think Ross would have an equally good chance STATE-WIDE against Moore as Pickering/Wicker without the risk of openening up another House Seat.

It’s my opinion that the “know how” portion of your suggestion is moot from the standpoint that most would agree that the primary message from Ross’ campaign wasn’t very compelling, and that the ground game put together by Ross’ campaign was either extremely lacking or non-existent.

Suffice it to say that justifying one’s qualifcations for electability as a test for appointment upon analysis is a fairly high bar.

Explain to me why the Coast would vote for Ross over Mike Moore, in any vote...at any time.  He swung Harrison by a slim margin by messaging Bryant against Casino expansion, in the last election.  There are no casino issues that I can think of in a Congressional, and with all due respect I just don’t buy the transference that you’re selling.  Ross got pounded in Jackson county, and Moore is from Jackson county. 

Ross does not have organization built in and ready to go.  Campaign supporters monetary and otherwise are transient campaign to campaign...it really depends on who is in the field.  Just because they supported you this time, doesn’t mean that they will in the next run.  That is part of the “timing” function in the campaign equation. Never, ever believe anything different than that.

I’m pretty sure that I know more about the out of state and in state tort reform money better than anyone here, including Charlie Ross if he reads this board, and on the whole, they feel like they’ve done their part, and don’t owe him anything special.  Fact of the matter is that GHB could appoint Tom Head (I’m for you, Tom!) to the Senate with an R behind his name, and in an election against Mike Moore, those tort reform interested companies would contribute the same to Tom as they’d contribute to an appointed Charlie Ross.  Primarily because Tom isn’t Mike Moore.  Some of them have federal PACs, but not all by any stretch. (remember that federal elections don’t allow corporate contributions, only personal contributions, limited to $2300 per cycle, and contributions from federal PACs) They’ll be more likely to give their money to 527s and to the RNCC and NRSC, regardless.

I was probably stretching it a little bit with the Tom Head comment and I hope that Tom takes no offense, as I didn’t mean any.  I was simply trying to make a point.

I’ll end tonight by saying that I think Charlie Ross is a fine person and did well on issues in the state senate.  But for me the definition of electability is a high bar.

I can’t argue the “ground-game” comment. I think ALL of the candidates, Bryant and Barbour excluded, had trouble with the ground-game during this cycle. It’s fair to say, the GOP handled the ground-game for all of the State-Wides. Starting so deep in the hole, Ross never had the chance to sell his “fighter pilot, war veteran, Air Force Academy, Harvard Graduate” background like he should have. Given a better opportunity to do so, I think Ms voters would respond.

RD, no offense taken.  I would be as shocked to see myself appointed to the senate with an R by my name as anybody else--though to be honest, the odds of my being appointed to the senate with a D by my name are probably pretty slim at this point, too!

Re the ground game discussion and Charlie Ross’ electability: Ross came in with an AMAZING resumé, and footsoldier hits all the bases--Harvard, Air Force Academy, fighter pilot, war veteran.  Not to mention strong conservative credentials on the Castle Doctrine and tort reform.  By the time Ross’ campaign was over, I think most of us had basically forgotten about his credentials; he had made the race a referendum on Phil Bryant’s ideological purity, or something.

My guess on Barbour’s appointment, BTW, would be Amy Tuck.  The timing of it just makes too much sense, with her showing zero interest in District 3, and I think Barbour’s reputation as someone who punishes his critics is probably not well deserved.

Charlie Ross aint going to get it.  It will be Charles Pickering.  Ross won’t even carry his own county in the upcoming congressional race.

T Head, I can tell you that Amy Tuck did not know in advance. She has signed a contract to making a whopping $160,000 a year at MSU.

You gotta admire Haley—damn the torpedos and simply declare the the election is going to happen next November when Mississippi Republicans administer their regularly scheduled quadrennial thrashing of all things Democrat.  He’s forcing Howdy Dowdy to file a lawsuit seeking a faster election and, whether its filed in state or federal court, Howdy’s going to have a hard time finding a receptive audience.

It’s a brilliant game plan.

The fact that Chip has been waiting for one of the Senate seats to open up is no secret. And, while he did say he was leaving the House to spend more time with his family, he also said he was going to look for other opportunities. If this isn’t an opportunity, I don’t know what is. But, he could also make a great deal more money in the private sector, and he has a special needs child among his 5 boys. That is reason enough to stay home for a family man.

I know it will be tempting for him, but I dont think he will run. He can still wait out Cochran.

This may have been discussed earlier, so sorrry if I’m repeating something here, but it seems pretty clear that Lott is holding open the option to register as a lobbyist. New Senate ethics rules will require retired members of Congress to wait two years following their retirement before becoming lobbyists. By leaving the Senate before the end of the year, Lott could avoid the two-year waiting period.

Lott doesn’t have to register as a Lobbyist. I’m sure there are one or two, or two dozen, Companies that would love to have him as a “Consultant”. Doesn’t this circumvent the new legislation? Let’s not underestimate GHB and Lott’s abilities to have their cake and eat it too. The MSGOP does not want a March election; GHB, Lott, and Cochran are the MSGOP aren’t they? I’d bet the ranch, Lott makes his resignation official on whatever date is best for GOP retention. Mike Moore would be a formidable, but beat-able opponent for the Appointee. Most folks, not from the Coast, over-estimate his strength here.  You gotta love Mississippi Politics right now. We go from a ho-hum election cycle to this in a matter of weeks.

http://willbardwell.blogspot.com/2007/11/wickerforsenatecom.html

Very interesting, Wicker’s campaign has bought up Wicker for Senate dot com. This is always a tell-tell sign since the people who purchase these sites are unaware that a simple whois search reveals who purchased the site.

Somebody got caught!!!

http://fcreek.com/stories/wicker.asp

The guy who purchased the website is Allen Fuller of Flat Creek Technology. He also serves as a consultant to Wicker for Congress.

http://fcreek.com/stories/wicker.asp

http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=wickerforsenate.com

Roger would make a great Senator as would Chip.

good detective work.  and upon more examination one finds that:

gregdavisforcongress.com has been locked up also by davis himself.

Josh Gregory purchased pickeringforsenate.com in 2005

To add yet another wrinkle to the special election issue ....

I fully believe that if Lott resigns in 2007, the special election to replace him must take place in 90 days, not in November.  The law is pretty clear on that bit, republican strategy and democratic lawsuits be damned.

Soooooo ... when to have that special election in 90 days?  Logic would say that it makes sense to have it at the same time as the March primary.  That may actually be a terrible idea.

The primaries are run by the parties—two separate elections taking place at the same time, in the same polling places, but results tabulated by completely different people.

The special election will be a no-primary free-for-all.  That means that no matter which primary someone votes in, the US Senate ballot will be the same.

Will each party tabulate the results that they gather and then hand them over to the county election commission to be added with the other party’s results?  Does the significance of this race mean that we should have completely separate ballots for it—meaning paper ballots—so that the election commissioners can do ALL the tabulation?

I think this would confuse the hell out of a lot of county party committees.

The other possibility is having the special at a completely different time, which would be pretty expensive.

Just thinking out loud ....

Greg Davis indeed purchased the website HIMSELF. This is a great sign and if Wicker is appointed, Greg would be a great Congressman for the 1st but Merle Flowers aint giving it up the easy. It’s gone be Davis vs. Flowers vs. Nunulee and Nunelee would probably win with the split DeSoto vote.

Greg Davis for Congress!!!!!!

Granted that the statute governing elections following a vacancy during a term of office is not elegantly drafted. However, it does not say that the election may coincide with a general election if the vacancy occurs in the same CALENDAR year as the general. It says in the YEAR of the general. If this is construed as meaning “in the 365-day period beginning with the day of the occurrence of the vacancy,” then the occurrence of the vacancy would if fact fall within the same “year” as the general. Perhaps GHB’s office is hanging its hat on this interpretation.

if DeSoto has more than one candidate in a congressional race, then yes, it makes it easier for a non desoto countian to win the seat, if not probable.  But what if only one desoto countian runs?  be it flowers or davis?

Hernando Man, If one candidate from Desoto runs, Tupelo/Lee/Union County will lose their hold on that seat.

DeSoto County would have to come out and vote.  If only the 18434 DeSoto Countians that voted earlier this month come out, is that enough to take on PUL?

In my view, if Lott resigns in 2007, there will have to be a special election within 90 days.  Reagan Dem:  in a special election, all candidates are listed on the same ballot, and 50%-plus is required to win.  Thad Cochran was first elected to the Senate in a 1978 regular general election, which was preceded by party primaries in June.  Thus, he was able to win the three-way November election with 45%.

As it now stands, the Senate is scheduled to adjourn on Dec. 18.  For Lott to bypass the new 2-year waiting period for lobbyists, his resignation would have to take effect no later than Dec. 17. 

In the 1989 special U. S. House election, Mike Moore, then in his first term as attorney general, finished third with 21%.  Of course, that was before he became the pin-up boy of the anti-tobacco nazis.  (Trent Lott’s meddling in that race helped Gene Taylor to win.)

As I see it, Chip Pickering is the best choice for the Senate seat.

Steve, how do you see this actually playing out, since Haley Barbour and Eric Clark have both issued press releases saying that special election will be in November?  And other than political gamesmanship, WHY ON EARTH would they have done such a thing?

Don’t forget that Roger Wicker and Gene Taylor could run in a special Senate election without giving up their House seats.  Of course, if the Senate election winds up being held on the same date-- March 11-- as the party primaries, an incumbent House member would presumably have to choose one office or the other.  If he ran simultaneously in the Senate special election and his party’s primary for the House, he would greatly lessen his chances of winning the Senate race.

The more I think about it, the less sense March 11 makes as a date for a special Senate election.  In addition to the presidential primaries and the House primaries, there will be party primaries for Sen. Cochran’s seat.  Having a special election for Sen. Lott’s seat on the same day would be quite confusing.

According to yesterday’s ‘Think Progress’ article, the secretary of state’s office was questioning the November 4, 2008 date for the special election.  Then Secretary Clark issued the statement confirming the November 4 date.

Wayne Dowdy, the state Democratic chairman, of course, is saying that Gov. Barbour must schedule the special election within 100 days of Sen. Lott’s date of resignation.

We may be in for some more legal wrangling.

On this evening’s TV news, it sounded like former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove is closer to jumping into the race than former AG Mike Moore (both Democrats).  Musgrove said things were in bad shape in Washington.  Let’s see… which party has been in charge of both houses of Congress since last January?

Musgrove would be a really strong candidate from where I sit.  It would be difficult to find an eligible Republican who can beat his name ID.

Can you imagine a debate on the Senate floor between Ronnie Musgrove and Lindsey Graham Cracker?

Musgrove a strong candidate? If he runs how much you want to be there will be a foot in a campaign commercial? Also, how many people knew who Haley Barbour was when he decided to run against Ronnie?

How many people knew who a former head of the National GOP was?

During the Clinton scandals you couldn’t turn on a Sunday morning show (Meet the Press, etc.) without seeing Haley or hearing about the “Republican Revolution” and the “Contract with America”.

Of course he was known. Probably more so than any other Republican at the time, other than Lott and Cochran.

I think I found out a little more on the “legal basis” of the Nov. special election date that Barbour and Clark have promoted.  Pasting part of the relevant code section:

(1) If a vacancy shall occur in the office of United States Senator from Mississippi by death, resignation or otherwise, ... , unless the vacancy shall occur in a year that there shall be held a general state or congressional election, in which event the Governor’s proclamation shall designate the general election day as the time for electing a Senator, and the vacancy shall be filled by appointment as hereinafter provided.

OK, see the part about “unless the vacancy ...”?  Most of us have read that thinking forward—the vacancy taking place in a year with a state election THAT HAS YET TO OCCUR.  Barbour and Clark are saying that since a statewide election took place in 2007, then they can use the November date.

I think it’s kind of shady reasoning, though it might work.  The intent of the code seems to be to allow a special election to take place with an existing state general election that takes place IN THE SAME YEAR as the vacancy.  But that intent isn’t clear in the wording of the code section.

Anyone have any thoughts on how a court would see this, if the suit we keep talking about happens?

Note, Will Bardwell has a good analysis of the same point I just made posted on his blog.  I wonder if the person I talked to got their info from Will ....

RE: Special Election
Makes sense I think, but I may not have had enough coffee yet. Wouldn’t it all hinge on the the wording of “in a year” as opposed to “within a year”?

I would think the intent of the lawmakers when writing the constitution would be to have the election 100 days from Lott’s resignation if he were to resign this year.  An interesting scenario will involve how long it takes this all to play out in the courts.  I’m afraid this too is gonna be a partisan battle.

Will be interesting to see how the MS supreme court rules on this.

Bardwell makes the point that wording also says “shall be held”. That would seem to indicate a future event.

Sticky, indeed. Lawyers, start your engines.

“. . . unless the vacancy shall occur in a year that there shall be held a general state or congressional election, in which event the Governor’s proclamation shall designate the general election day as the time for electing a Senator . . .”

This appears to be a classic case of legislators meaning well but not considering all of the possibilities when crafting legislation.  The rather obvious intent is to reduce the number of elections by holding the special election along with the general election if the vacancy occurs before the general election that year. In all probability, the legislators never thought about the possibility of someone resigning after the general election but before the end of the calendar year, which is why we have so much confusion.

This is where courts try to divine “legislative intent” by looking at the overall purpose of a statute.  In this case, there are at least two obvious purposes, (1) electing a new Senator while (2) minimizing the number of general elections in a given year.  Howdy Dowdy and company want to completely ignore the second obvious purpose and force the state to hold TWO general elections in 2008. 

It ain’t gonna happen.

’Roll Call’ had an article yesterday entitled, “Dispute Over Election to Replace Lott Could Wind up in Court.” I don’t have a subscription, but here’s the first part:

Sen. Trent Lott’s (R-Miss.) decision to resign by year’s end has sparked a partisan disagreement that could lead to a legal battle over his succession, with Democrats and Republicans now arguing over when the special election to replace him should be held.

In ALL special elections in Mississippi, all candidates run in the same election.  If no candidate gets 50%-plus, there is a runoff.  The last special U. S. House election we had was in 1993, after Mike Espy resigned to become U. S. agriculture secretary.  Hayes Dent led the first round, but Comrade Bennie Thompson won the runoff.

Mississippi has had only four U. S. senators since November 1947, when John Stennis won the special election for the late Theodore Bilbo’s seat.

When I saw “Johnson” in today’s sub-headline about the race to succeed Sen. Lott, I thought it meant Pete Johnson, the former state auditor.  Senator Harvey Johnson? It’s a little late for Halloween jokes!