AZ Republicans trying to block voters from chosing McCain replacement

a reply to: Vector99

That's the new clause. The one the Republicans have proposed.
My mistake.


Here is the new clause:

D. If a vacancy in the office of United States senator occurs more than one hundred fifty days before the next regular primary election date, the person who is appointed pursuant to subsection C of this section shall continue to serve until the vacancy is filled at the next general election.� If a vacancy in the office of United States Senator occurs one hundred fifty days or less before the next regular primary election date, the person who is appointed shall serve until the vacancy is filled at the second regular general election held immediately after the vacancy occurs, any candidate for nomination to fill that vacancy shall submit at least 0.125 percent of the total number of qualified signers in the state notwithstanding section 16-322, subsection A, paragraph 1 and the person elected shall fill the remaining unexpired term of the vacated office.

legiscan.com...

So it means that the appointee would not be replaced (or retained) by voters in 2018 (the next general election) but would hold the office until the 2020 election. If the vacancy occurs after May. For some reason.

originally posted by: Phage

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.

McCain must not being doing very well if this rule is being talked about publicly. Sounds like they don't expect him to make it six more weeks...

originally posted by: ntech
That it irks Democrats is a plus.

Does it?

You mean losing McCain?

Insane McCain was practically part of the Obama Administration. Like Obama's "whip" in the Senate.

a reply to: Edumakated

I think it's more that, because of his condition, they took a closer look at the existing law and realized that the seat could be in danger in this year's election. For some reason.

a reply to: Phage

I say it is the business of Arizona voters. Each state has the right to fill its vacancies as they see fit. Leave it to the voters of each state.

And, please tell me which political party DOES NOT work exclusively for their own political advantage? Go on name one!

a reply to: whywhynot

Leave it to the voters of each state.

Thing is, it's not the voters who are changing the law.

And, please tell me which political party DOES NOT work exclusively for their own political advantage? Go on name one!

You mean political advantage is the only thing Republicans care about? I'm not sure that's true. For any party, actually.

The problems simple to get a temporary seat for 150 days or less a campaign has to spend money just as if this was a real seat. And then the expense of all candidates is doubled unless they choose nor the run for the temporary seat. But would confuse the voters as they would be choosing two candidates for the same seat at the same time. Any campaign with an election in 150 days have started running comercials. Then there's the expense to the state itself. The state has to pay for an election only to Ave to do it again 150 days later.


But I'm sorry I'm apposed to think this is an a front to democracy. How dare they make this change trying not to have to pay for an election 4 and a half months later. What if it's really stupid and only 30 days. Spend all that money for someone to hold the seat 30 days?

a reply to: dragonridr


The issue is not a special election.

The current law says that an appointed replacement is to hold the seat until the next general election, which would be this year. 2018. No special election. The normal general election which is going to be held as usual.

The new law would say that the replacement would hold the seat until 2020.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: whywhynot

Leave it to the voters of each state.

Thing is, it's not the voters who are changing the law.

And, please tell me which political party DOES NOT work exclusively for their own political advantage? Go on name one!

You mean political advantage is the only thing Republicans care about? I'm not sure that's true. For any party, actually.

Thing is we don’t live in a democracy and have everything done by majority popular vote. If this change is made it would be done thru a majority vote of the people’s elected representatives.

And, as I said, each party will always work toward their own advantage. Glad we agree.

a reply to: whywhynot

If this change is made it would be done thru a majority vote of the people’s elected representatives.

Indeed.

So, Like the Dems the republicans should appoint auctioneer Rod Blagojevich instead. oh wrong thread , wrong year my bad.

a reply to: Phage

So it means that the appointee would not be replaced (or retained) by voters in 2018 (the next general election) but would hold the office until the 2020 election. If the vacancy occurs after May. For some reason.

I don't see the need for such a change, but the change will also affect any (D) senator as well, it's not exclusive to (R).

The only thing I can think is they think McCain will die in the next month, because no way in hell he will retire. On the slim to none chance he actually would retire, it would be after the next general election, I'm sure he's very aware of AZ statute on senate replacements.

Being from AZ I can see why they are doing this, the state is going to hell coz of all the libtards fleeing from CA.

Not saying I agree or disagree but understand the motivation from some different angles.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Edumakated

I think it's more that, because of his condition, they took a closer look at the existing law and realized that the seat could be in danger in this year's election. For some reason.

You are right to be cynical, however, candidates and electoral officers do need some reasonable amount of time to prepare for an election and I think that this is a reasonable thing to allow for.

There are General Elections of one kind or another every year in Arizona, I think, so it doesn't mean that the appointee would be allowed to serve 2 years without facing an election. (Edit: I guess that is unlikely to be correct. Legislators serve 2 years, and the Governor 4 years so I don't know what State General Election would be held in the odd years. I thought Legislators served 3 year terms).

Now whether 5 months (150 days) is a reasonable time frame is debatable. I would have thought 3 months or 90 days would have been sufficient.

Edit 2: So with the GE only being every two years, this is shaping up to be a reaction to the Wisconsin case where the Governor decided to ignore the State Constitution and refused to hold a special election to fill vacancies. The Governor got shut down on that one and wasted hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars trying to run his dictatorial scheme. While it is unreasonable to think that a reasonable election can be held if the vacancy occurs shortly before the election day, it is NOT reasonable to avoid a special election at the next opportunity. To the extent that the Arizona proposal acknowledges that an election needs time to be prepared for it is reasonable. To the extent that it attempts to eliminate special elections, especially to ensure that the will of the people cannot be heard, it is bad law. Very bad law.

a reply to: Phage

because they need more time to reveal democrat crimes, wrecking the support for any democrat candidate, whats coming before nov will make the nation hate the democrats.

a reply to: CB328

What's interesting to consider is that state senators used to be elected by the state governing bodies, so it's not really all that crazy of an idea.

But I do concede that, if it were a Democrat in office, this wouldn't be a consideration, but I also can see that, with less than half of a year before a regular election cycle, the cost for such a (probably) temporary senatorial run and special election might not be in the best interest of the taxpayers who would fund the election, nor would a special election in such an instance give any candidates enough time to run a proper campaign...and I bet that the voter turnout would be pathetic.

So, I can see why this is being considered overall, even if the driving reason might be a backhanded political reason at this moment in time.

In any event, It's time for McCain to go, regardless. How they do it is up to the state.

ETA: Well, this throws out that idea:

originally posted by: Phage

Here is the new clause:

D. If a vacancy in the office of United States senator occurs more than one hundred fifty days before the next regular primary election date, the person who is appointed pursuant to subsection C of this section shall continue to serve until the vacancy is filled at the next general election.� If a vacancy in the office of United States Senator occurs one hundred fifty days or less before the next regular primary election date, the person who is appointed shall serve until the vacancy is filled at the second regular general election held immediately after the vacancy occurs, any candidate for nomination to fill that vacancy shall submit at least 0.125 percent of the total number of qualified signers in the state notwithstanding section 16-322, subsection A, paragraph 1 and the person elected shall fill the remaining unexpired term of the vacated office.

legiscan.com...

So it means that the appointee would not be replaced (or retained) by voters in 2018 (the next general election) but would hold the office until the 2020 election. If the vacancy occurs after May. For some reason.

Now knowing that the proposition is to allow the appointed (not elected) senator to serve a full term plus the time prior to that term, I now hold issue with this. The appointee, if they go that route, should only hold the office temporarily by appointment and should have to immediately run to be elected to continue holding that seat.

I know that it still creates timing issues, but by leaving an appointed person in there for the next full term, will the state be willing to reimburse opposing candidates for their costs incurred by running against someone who, by no fault of their own, left office and now they have no chance of winning the next election?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

What's interesting to consider is that state senators used to be elected by the state governing bodies, so it's not really all that crazy of an idea.

That is completely untrue. The Arizona State Senate has ALWAYS been elected by the normal popular vote in a normal General Election. ALWAYS.

You may be thinking of the U.S. Senate, which because of the problem of States refusing to appoint Senators due to local political infighting and thus leaving themselves unrepresented for years at a stretch, led to the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Interestingly, the 17th Amendment was proposed in 1912 (ratified in 1913) the same year that Arizona was admitted to the union.

a reply to: rnaa

That's what I meant: McCain is a U.S. senator (well known fact) representing a state and voted into office by the people of the state, but it wasn't always that way, as you seem to already know. I can see that my wording may have caused confusion.

I should have said, "...is that U.S. senators from each state use to be..."