Via the Anchorage Daily News: Begich leads Stevens in latest tally:
Begich, who was losing after election night, now leads Stevens by 814 votes — 132,196 to 131,382 — with the state still to count roughly 35,000 more ballots over the next week.
[...]
The state still needs to count at least 15,000 questioned ballots and an estimated 20,000 absentee ballots that made it to the Division of Elections after election day last Tuesday.
This will not be completed until early-to-mid next week, according to the piece.
And for the paragraph that underscores so much that is wrong with this situation, I give you:
Stevens, a 40-year incumbent, is trying to become the first person ever elected to the U.S. Senate after a being found guilty of felony crimes.
Perhaps if Stevens hadn’t seen his Senate seat as his right, he wouldn’t have gotten into this mess in the first place.
Of course, even if Stevens eeks out a win, he will soon be expelled from the Senate (if he doesn’t decide to take the Nixon route, and preemptively resign). Via the AJC’s Political Insider: Saxby Chambliss says he’d vote to expel Alaska senator, and Sarah Palin may be ready to replace him
“First of all, I hope Senator Stevens is successful in being re-elected. And assuming that he is, I intend to support any motion to remove him,” Chambliss said during a press conference with John Ensign of Nevada, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina has served notice that he’ll seek to expel Stevens from the Senate Republican Conference at a meeting next Tuesday.
While Ensign said that he, too, would vote to expel Stevens from the GOP circle — a move that would foreshadow expulsion by the entire Senate — the Nevada senator counseled waiting to see whether Stevens wins his race.
And those are all members of Stevens’ own party…
Meanwhile, could this all mean Senator Palin?:
Expulsion or, more likely, a resignation would trigger a 90-day special election to replace him
[...]
Sphere: Related ContentIn the interview, which airs at 9 p.m. tonight, King asked Palin if she intends to finish out her term. ” I will do what the people of Alaska want me to do,” Palin replied. “If they call an audible on me, and if they say they want me in another position, I’m going to do it.”
November 13th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Perhaps this is pedantic, but it would not be the first time…
Stevens resigning would not be ‘taking the Nixon route.’ Nixon resigned and received a pardon, and thus was never tried in either the Senate or a court of law for his crimes.
Stevens has already been tried and convicted.
Stevens, of course, was on the ballot, whereas Nixon would not have been ever again.
I am not sure here whether to cheer the possibility of electoral accountability (if Begich ultimately takes and holds a lead in votes) or to look forward to seeing how the Republican Senate conference deals with a reelected convict in its midst.
There is always the chance of a pardon, I suppose! (That was not either a prediction or a wish!)
November 13th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I thought I had read earlier that the procedure for filling a vacancy would be different, depending on whether the incumbent resigned or was expelled.
The first sentence of the final quoted passage implies it is the same either way.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
The “Nixon route” meaning resigning before being formally tossed when one knows that the tossing is coming. The conviction issue is, of course, rather different.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I don’t think he’s going to resign. Stevens is one hard-headed guy. If his re-election stands, he will make the Senate expel him. I think that’s unfortunate, and I don’t think it’s in the best interests of his constitutuents, but I think that’s what will happen. The guy has been known to wear Incredible Hulk ties on the floor of the Senate. He loves to fight and doesn’t care about the collateral damage he can cause when he does.
As for a Senator Palin, it wouldn’t surprise me very much. I’ve argued in the past that she has the potential to be a transforming figure for the GOP, because she’s still relatively young and unknown, but is highly charismatic and looks good on TV. Four or eight years in the Senate - if she is successful as a senator - would probably force her to shift a bit to the center on some social issues and provide a great learning opportunity. Heck, it worked for barack Obama - he was quite successful in just two years of senate service at downplaying his very liberal history and apppearing centrist. I submit that if he can go from zero to hero in 2 years, it’s entirely plausible for Palin to do the same.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Despite your earlier explanation, and surprising as it may be if the bloke does come to win the vote, I find it entirely undemocratic for the senate to expel someone who has been elected directed by the people after his conviction.
Even if the senate represents the people, their authority is delegated to them, and if the man is voted in by the people, it should be beyond the senate’s powers to counter the democratically voted mandate of one of its members.
regards
November 13th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I actually agree with James, in principle.
However, if the man is going to do jail time, does he get furloughs for debates and votes? I mean, seriously, an actual convict can’t discharge his duties, popular election to the post or not. Does one commute the sentence so that his conviction does not get in the way? I sure hope not.
This may be just about the only condition under which I would think an expulsion could be justified.
In any case, I suspect this will be moot, as it appears he will have been voted out–by the voters of Alaska. The election is not over till all the votes are counted.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Whether or not we find it to be “democratic”, it is completely within the constitutional power of the senate to expel a member. This is covered in Article 1, Section 5:
“Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.”
This has been done 15 times in U.S. History - it’s been more common in the house, but then the house has more members, so one would expect that. We would do well to remember that the United States is not a “democracy” in the purest sense of the word - a democratic republic with some direct democatic features, maybe.
As far as his being re-elected goes, I wouldn’t count on most of the absentee ballots being for the democrat. A disproportionate number of absentee ballots are from members of the armed forces, and, at least in Alaska this year, the vast majority of those will be republicans.
We’ll just have to see how things look when all the votes are counted. And re-counted. And re-counted again. . .