Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In NY it also depends on when the vacancy occurs. For example, last year when Oyster Bay Town Supervisor John Venditto resigned after his indictment, the Oyster Bay Town Board appointed Assemblyman Joe Saladino to fill the rest of his term. A Special Election was held to fill the remainder of the term in Saladino's Assembly seat.
But city/town vs state...
I think lot of this depends on the local/state charters/constitutions...
And frankly--if people were to live in a democratic dominant district, Walker is not appointing a democratic leaning replacement...so people would maybe have lacked representation of THEIR political views/agendas even if there was a warm body in the seat...
Personally living in state w/heavy GOP support and elected officials, I find my ideas find little support since my choice rarely wins and often in some positions there are only GOP candidates...
But I AM a believer in the democratic process....I vote even when I know I will likely lose...
All I ask is a level playing field and that elected representatives accept the concept they don't just represent their PARTY but anyone in their district/state----
THAT is where most of these GOP officials fail...and probably Democrates too--I just don't see much of them in my own experience...
Ted Cruz and Robert Cornyn, my two Senators, refuse to hold open town halls, turn off their phones so they won't get critical messages from constituents...they have insulated themselves from ANY viewpoints that don't agree with theirs...
I have read about Walker and to be honest some things he has done were not that bad for his state--but his methods show he has no respect for the democratic process and for an elected government official that is about as bad as it gets...
While I know that given these circumstances, a Democrat governor would do the same as Walker if there were vacated Dem seats that likely would be won by Republicans...
But shame on Walker and the hypothetical Democrat governor. Americans should represented in Congress. It's that simple. Even if it hurts your own party. Too bad that's not how it works and I'd be naive to think so.
But city/town vs state...
I think lot of this depends on the local/state charters/constitutions...
And frankly--if people were to live in a democratic dominant district, Walker is not appointing a democratic leaning replacement...so people would maybe have lacked representation of THEIR political views/agendas even if there was a warm body in the seat...
Personally living in state w/heavy GOP support and elected officials, I find my ideas find little support since my choice rarely wins and often in some positions there are only GOP candidates...
But I AM a believer in the democratic process....I vote even when I know I will likely lose...
All I ask is a level playing field and that elected representatives accept the concept they don't just represent their PARTY but anyone in their district/state----
THAT is where most of these GOP officials fail...and probably Democrates too--I just don't see much of them in my own experience...
Ted Cruz and Robert Cornyn, my two Senators, refuse to hold open town halls, turn off their phones so they won't get critical messages from constituents...they have insulated themselves from ANY viewpoints that don't agree with theirs...
I have read about Walker and to be honest some things he has done were not that bad for his state--but his methods show he has no respect for the democratic process and for an elected government official that is about as bad as it gets...
It was a similar situation, open seat in the State Legislature (I just added in the extra about where the Assemblyman went because the trial of the Town Supervisor that resigned is going on now and I live there)
Eh, he'll appeal. At the very least, appeals are likely to take so long that the state Supreme Court won't mandate the special election be held before the normal election time.
Eh, he'll appeal. At the very least, appeals are likely to take so long that the state Supreme Court won't mandate the special election be held before the normal election time.
That's up to the court. Any court can decide an emergency appeal pretty darned fast when it becomes a priority.
Since the state supreme court has already ruled, it's likely an appeal, if there were no new issues, could be rejected. In that case, the governor and state secretary of state are obliged to obey the law.
The secretary of state is the official that sets the election, it's date, etc. Gov. Walker could object and appeal, but it's very possible the Sec. of State would proceed with setting a special election while the appeal is in process.
The citizens cannot go without their elected representation, period. That's against all states' and federal laws.
Some states allow the governor to select a replacement and other states require a special election. Walker has to obey the laws of his state.
Be grateful you had an honest judge...especially one likely perceived to be loyal to Walker who appointed her...
We have problems in Texas with many of our judges being to party oriented vs law oriented...
That's up to the court. Any court can decide an emergency appeal pretty darned fast when it becomes a priority.
Since the state supreme court has already ruled, it's likely an appeal, if there were no new issues, could be rejected. In that case, the governor and state secretary of state are obliged to obey the law.
The secretary of state is the official that sets the election, it's date, etc. Gov. Walker could object and appeal, but it's very possible the Sec. of State would proceed with setting a special election while the appeal is in process.
The citizens cannot go without their elected representation, period. That's against all states' and federal laws.
Some states allow the governor to select a replacement and other states require a special election. Walker has to obey the laws of his state.
What has the state supreme court already ruled on, though? Can't be this issue specifically, unless it did and it remanded the case to a lower court to enter an opinion consistent with its ruling. But that would seem odd based on the commentary I'm reading about the possibility of an appeal.
In any event, I argue that the ruling is flawed on its face. A clear reading of Wisconsin state law makes it clear that the governor (the secretary of state doesn't seem to play a role in setting dates of elections in Wisconsin, see: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/8/50) is not required to set a special election for vacancies that occurred in the year prior to the date of the regularly scheduled election. Specifically, per state law:
Quote:
Any vacancy in the office of state senator or representative to the assembly occurring before the 2nd Tuesday in May in the year in which a regular election is held to fill that seat shall be filled as promptly as possible by special election.
The vacancies at issue here occurred in late 2017, which puts them outside the scope of the special election law. Period. The judge in this case chides the Walker Administration for failing to plainly read the law when they are "so vocal" in pushing for strict interpretation/originalism by the courts (https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...nag/448743002/), but the judge is the one who gets it wrong. By the plain language of the law, as the vacancies occurred "before the 2nd Tuesday in May in the year in which a regular election is held to fill the seat," the state is under no obligation to call special elections here. It is not the job of the courts to defy the plain language of the legislature like this. The courts have no business trying to "improve" what the legislature has set out.
While I wish that circumstances allowed for a quick election to fill the seats after they became vacant (note, there are federal legal/timing requirements as well that states must follow in setting special elections in order to allow for active duty military members deployed, etc., to be able to vote, so the election likely would not have been set before the state senate was scheduled to adjourn for the year . . . I acknowledge that there are assembly seats that are vacant, too, but most attention is being paid to the senate seat), I have to agree with Governor Walker that calling for special elections would have been a waste of money given that both chambers were scheduled to adjourn for the year in March. Under the push by Democrats and leftist interests groups led by Eric Holder, much money would be spent to elect members who wouldn't even get to vote on anything until after they'd have to stand for already scheduled general elections in November. It would be one thing if the law clearly required such a position, but it does not.
Lastly, to push back on some of the erroneous cries of rank partisanship over fears of the GOP losing control of the state senate that I've read elsewhere online, I note that an election to fill this vacancy (and there is only one vacancy in the state senate now) would not have changed control of the chamber (the GOP holds a 18 to 14 majority in the state senate, with 1 vacancy). I acknowledge that this judge was appointed by Walker, but she seems to have been a poor choice (based on his standards) in that she is not plainly reading the law, but instead is attempting to read what is not there. But, just looking back at things like the right to work law and other contentious issues in Wisconsin, the State Supreme Court has had to reverse many a trial and lower appeals court ruling against the Walker Administration in the past. I think there is a great chance they will do so here, too, although that may not be necessary as the legislature has been called back into special session to modify the law to make it crystal clear (what is already clear, although not to this judge) that a special election is not required to be held under these circumstances.
What has the state supreme court already ruled on, though? Can't be this issue specifically, unless it did and it remanded the case to a lower court to enter an opinion consistent with its ruling. But that would seem odd based on the commentary I'm reading about the possibility of an appeal.
In any event, I argue that the ruling is flawed on its face. A clear reading of Wisconsin state law makes it clear that the governor (the secretary of state doesn't seem to play a role in setting dates of elections in Wisconsin, see: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/8/50) is not required to set a special election for vacancies that occurred in the year prior to the date of the regularly scheduled election. Specifically, per state law:
The vacancies at issue here occurred in late 2017, which puts them outside the scope of the special election law. Period. The judge in this case chides the Walker Administration for failing to plainly read the law when they are "so vocal" in pushing for strict interpretation/originalism by the courts (https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...nag/448743002/), but the judge is the one who gets it wrong. By the plain language of the law, as the vacancies occurred "before the 2nd Tuesday in May in the year in which a regular election is held to fill the seat," the state is under no obligation to call special elections here. It is not the job of the courts to defy the plain language of the legislature like this. The courts have no business trying to "improve" what the legislature has set out.
While I wish that circumstances allowed for a quick election to fill the seats after they became vacant (note, there are federal legal/timing requirements as well that states must follow in setting special elections in order to allow for active duty military members deployed, etc., to be able to vote, so the election likely would not have been set before the state senate was scheduled to adjourn for the year . . . I acknowledge that there are assembly seats that are vacant, too, but most attention is being paid to the senate seat), I have to agree with Governor Walker that calling for special elections would have been a waste of money given that both chambers were scheduled to adjourn for the year in March. Under the push by Democrats and leftist interests groups led by Eric Holder, much money would be spent to elect members who wouldn't even get to vote on anything until after they'd have to stand for already scheduled general elections in November. It would be one thing if the law clearly required such a position, but it does not.
Lastly, to push back on some of the erroneous cries of rank partisanship over fears of the GOP losing control of the state senate that I've read elsewhere online, I note that an election to fill this vacancy (and there is only one vacancy in the state senate now) would not have changed control of the chamber (the GOP holds a 18 to 14 majority in the state senate, with 1 vacancy). I acknowledge that this judge was appointed by Walker, but she seems to have been a poor choice (based on his standards) in that she is not plainly reading the law, but instead is attempting to read what is not there. But, just looking back at things like the right to work law and other contentious issues in Wisconsin, the State Supreme Court has had to reverse many a trial and lower appeals court ruling against the Walker Administration in the past. I think there is a great chance they will do so here, too, although that may not be necessary as the legislature has been called back into special session to modify the law to make it crystal clear (what is already clear, although not to this judge) that a special election is not required to be held under these circumstances.
Late 2017 is before the 2nd Tuesday of the Regular Election being held....
Late 2017 is before the 2nd Tuesday of the Regular Election being held....
You conveniently read over and ignored "in the year." There is a reason why I put that section in bold. For the recall law to apply, the vacancy has to have occurred before the 2nd Tuesday in May "in the year" in which a regular election is scheduled to fill the seat. 2017 is not "in the year" of the next regular election to fill the seat(s) . . . that would be 2018.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
