It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AZ Republicans trying to block voters from chosing McCain replacement

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Once again Republicans are trying to stop the citizens of America from their constitutional right to vote. They are pushing a bill that, in case John McCain has to be replaced in the Senate, would not allow there to be a special election unless it's more than 150 days from the next election. The State governor would get to appoint a replacement for McCain instead of having a special election, which is the current state law. While it would be a legal change, it sure seems undemocratic and a slap in the face of AZ state voters.

www.azcentral.com... 28390002/




posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Just a thought on why they would want to do it this way. The senate runs on seniority. Giving their senator the extra couple of months could mean a great deal in a couple of terms when it comes to committee rankings and chairmanships. Besides Arizona is replacing the Flake in November. Why do 2 senators at the same time? That it irks Democrats is a plus.

There's always a flip side to a Liberal argument.


edit on 21-4-2018 by ntech because: (no reason given)


+3 more 
posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Appointing a person to complete the term of a senator who becomes unable to perform his duties has happened dozens of times in the past. It's standard operating procedure for both parties. And stop with the hyperbole. It;s the citizens of Arizona only who will ultimately elect a new senator, not the "citizens of America."
edit on 4/21/2018 by schuyler because: (no reason given)


+1 more 
posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

And yet, Arizona Republicans want to change the law only now.
For some reason.
edit on 4/21/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328



A quick election benefits whom? People need to get signatures for the ballot and they have to be reviewed, do you want election fraud?



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Do you have to re-register to vote for every election in your state?
edit on 4/21/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 12:39 PM
link   
these right left diatribes are so annoying

seriously you guys are not paying attention if you think anything going on in this world is due to Republicans and Democrats one or the other



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
Once again Republicans are trying to stop the citizens of America from their constitutional right to vote.

Um, no?



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: schuyler

And yet, Arizona Republicans want to change the law only now.
For some reason.

What change? The link is broken and state law already mandates the governor appoint someone of the same political party to serve until the next general election.



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Your link doesn’t work.

Here is what is reported to happen by an AZ paper

www.tucsonsentinel.com...



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: schuyler

And yet, Arizona Republicans want to change the law only now.
For some reason.

What change? The link is broken and state law already mandates the governor appoint someone of the same political party to serve until the next general election.


Exactly!



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

100% correct.



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: schuyler

And yet, Arizona Republicans want to change the law only now.
For some reason.


What change, Phage? Can you cite the proposed "new" law?
edit on 4/21/2018 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 01:08 PM
link   


state law already mandates the governor appoint someone


According to the article they are supposed to have a special election, the appointment is short term. They want to make it long term so the people can't vote and have a senator appointed for them undemocratically.



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Great topic.

Can't get to the link.

No quotes from the article.

😀👋



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



state law already mandates the governor appoint someone


According to the article they are supposed to have a special election, the appointment is short term. They want to make it long term so the people can't vote and have a senator appointed for them undemocratically.


The link still is broken. With out something to refer to your statement is without merit.

Fake news?!



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: schuyler

And yet, Arizona Republicans want to change the law only now.
For some reason.


They know there's a strong Democratic push in AZ.

Independents are the top voter block in AZ - - not Republicans.



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



state law already mandates the governor appoint someone


According to the article they are supposed to have a special election, the appointment is short term. They want to make it long term so the people can't vote and have a senator appointed for them undemocratically.

Well according to state law, that isn't the case. They serve until the next general election.

C. For a vacancy in the office of United States senator, the governor shall appoint a person to fill the vacancy. That appointee shall be of the same political party as the person vacating the office and shall serve until the person elected at the next general election is qualified and assumes office. If the person vacating the office changed political party affiliations after taking office, the person who is appointed to fill the vacancy shall be of the same political party that the vacating officeholder was when the vacating officeholder was elected or appointed to that office.

source
edit on 21-4-2018 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

I’m gonna disagree..

What is the use of having an election for 6 months???

By the time the election happened and the new senator takes office. It is time for another election..


Of course there could be a very special and specific reason that this particular 180 days matter.. but should the state spend millions on an election where the senator only votes once or not at all.
edit on 21-4-2018 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   

The proposal, likely to come up for a vote next week, would allow an appointee to an open Senate seat to hold that seat for two full years if the vacancy occurs within 150 days of a regularly scheduled primary election.

Current law would give voters the right to pick a candidate to fill the remainder of a Senate term in the subsequent general election if a vacancy occurs by May 31, six weeks away. If the vacancy occurs after that date, anyone appointed by Gov. Doug Ducey (R) would hold the seat until the 2020 election.
thehill.com...

Here's the pertinent clause in the new law: Correction. Existing law.

C. For a vacancy in the office of United States senator, the governor shall appoint a person to fill the vacancy. That appointee shall be of the same political party as the person vacating the office and shall serve until the person elected at the next general election is qualified and assumes office. If the person vacating the office changed political party affiliations after taking office, the person who is appointed to fill the vacancy shall be of the same political party that the vacating officeholder was when the vacating officeholder was elected or appointed to that office.
source

Heh. It only applies to the Senate. For some reason. Seems they may be worried.


edit on 4/21/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join