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.
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.
"In the year" in which a regular election occurs means anything prior to the 2nd Tuesday in May of 2018, meaning the year prior as well. A vacancy after that time period, a Special Election wouldn't occur, anything during the cycle prior to that date including the year before would result in one.
"In the year" in which a regular election occurs means anything prior to the 2nd Tuesday in May of 2018, meaning the year prior as well. A vacancy after that time period, a Special Election wouldn't occur, anything during the cycle prior to that date including the year before would result in one.
A vacancy that occurs "before the 2nd Tuesday in May in the year in which a regular election is held to fill the seat" means that the vacancy has to have occurred prior to halfway through May of the year of the normally scheduled general election. To have your reading be permissible, the language would mention that the vacancy has to occur before the 2nd Tuesday in May "of the year" of the regular election. That "in" vs. "of" makes a big difference here. To be fair, while this is how I interpret the language and how many other people interpret it, your interpretation isn't an entirely unreasonable one (even if I strongly disagree with it), and is what the judge in this case had to be thinking as well. But that's why the legislature has met in special session now to clarify the point further that the special election law does not require such an election be called now.
A vacancy that occurs "before the 2nd Tuesday in May in the year in which a regular election is held to fill the seat" means that the vacancy has to have occurred prior to halfway through May of the year of the normally scheduled general election. To have your reading be permissible, the language would mention that the vacancy has to occur before the 2nd Tuesday in May "of the year" of the regular election. That "in" vs. "of" makes a big difference here. To be fair, while this is how I interpret the language and how many other people interpret it, your interpretation isn't an entirely unreasonable one (even if I strongly disagree with it), and is what the judge in this case had to be thinking as well. But that's why the legislature has met in special session now to clarify the point further that the special election law does not require such an election be called now.
The Legislature is actually meeting to change the law in an attempt not to comply with the Judge's order.
For starters it would make no sense for a Special Election not to occur when you are even further out. Not to mention there have been Special Elections held during vacancies that occurred during the year before the Election during the last several cycles. That includes Special Elections that took place in January of this year in the state after vacancies that occurred in October and November 2017. So why did the Special Elections occur in those races, but not these two?
The Tea Party - of which Walker is a self-declared member - takes its name from a 1773 act of vandalism in which corporate property (tea) was systematically destroyed.
Note: Tea Partiers, as reactionary as reactionaries come, embracing the destruction of big-business property? More hypocrisy-meter overload!
Anyway, what was the colonial beef with tea? That they were being taxed for it while being denied representation. And yet here is the chief Cheesehead Tea Partier doing his utmost to prolong the taxation-without-representation of his constituents. And he's being cheered on by self-identified Tea Party buffoons who have no working knowledge of history and, indeed, no actual principles beyond rage and clinging to naked power at all costs.
Walker To Schedule WI Special Elections After Deciding Against Appeal To Delay
"Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker issued an executive order scheduling special elections to fill two vacant legislative seats Thursday, as Senate Republicans abandoned their efforts to pass a bill blocking the contests amid intense criticism that the GOP was trying to avoid adding to string of losses."
Did you pick up on the fact that this thread isn't about "tax-payer leeching unions"?
I suppose your point is that because Walker doesn't support "tax-payer leeching unions" that anything he does is right? Is that it?
The discussion is a real simple one that went way over your head. Its about whether a governor has an obligation to follow the law and call a special election when a state senate seat is vacant. Its really pretty simple. He either has that obligation or he doesn't. Now, that the courts have ruled it appears that he has that obligation. Walker can appeal this, but I suspect that will be unsuccessful too.
Just a suggestion for the future. If you are going to reply to these threads figure out what is being said first. Don't rush to the barricades to defend your conservative heroes until you understand the discussion.
Walker To Schedule WI Special Elections After Deciding Against Appeal To Delay
"Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker issued an executive order scheduling special elections to fill two vacant legislative seats Thursday, as Senate Republicans abandoned their efforts to pass a bill blocking the contests amid intense criticism that the GOP was trying to avoid adding to string of losses."
Look at that. A Republican governor abiding by the law! - and all it took was for him to be cornered like a rat with no other possible options. Extra Republi-points for his colleagues trying to change the law while the seats were still vacant - that's the sort of banana republic maneuver we've come to expect.
Anyway, what was the colonial beef with tea? That they were being taxed for it while being denied representation.
The specific beef with tea that led to the Boston Tea Party was that the Crown lowered taxes on tea, undercutting some prominent colonials' very profitable tea smuggling operations.
Walker, by not calling for elections, was just initially following the mantra of the GOP - RESTRICT AND DENY PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO VOTE.
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.
