The Incompetence of Election Law
“Some are inspired geniuses mindful only of the greater good; some are connivers mindful only of personal good; most are wondering what’s for lunch.”
–Ken Herman of Austin American-Statesman describing the Texas Lege
Essential to the understanding of any legislative body is an understanding of who composes that body. The above quote could be repeated about all 50 states. When it is something legislators care about–like their lunch or wallets they pay attention. When it is a basic issue of good government, they still care about their lunch. Hence, most election law is hopelessly convoluted, often contradictory and usually half-ass.
In a stellar example of this, the State of Illinois doesn’t appear to have a plan to replace a US Senate Candidate who drops out. So remember the fuss in New Jersey over the replacement for Torricelli? This is even more problematic.
For statewide offices like governor and attorney general, the GOP state central committee picks the replacement. But two experts at the State Board of Elections say the law does not mention a U.S. Senate race. They added such a vacancy in a Senate contest is unprecedented in Illinois.
The odds are the state central committee would get to pick a successor, but given the unpredictability and split among the state’s GOP, a lawsuit could be filed to block that.
Even worse, Election Blog hits the issue and suggests a Constitutional problem:
The article does not mention one of the trickiest issues related to this question. Because this is a race for a federal office, the United States Constitution may limit how a replacement may be named. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution provides that the state legislature may prescribe the rules for picking Senators. If the legislative scheme has a gap, can courts (as opposed to the Illinois legislature) fill it in without violating Article I, Section 4?
The concurring opinion of Justice Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore (joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas) raised a parallel question under Article II (pertaining to state legislatures providing the rules for choosing presidential electors). But an attack on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision to allow late replacement of dropout Robert Torricelli in the New Jersey Senate race a few years ago on these grounds failed, and the United States Supreme Court declined to intervene. The issue is far from settled.
We have no idea if this will be relevant in this case, but this is just another case where such problems in the law that make elections with strange circumstances difficult. Not only does the law restrict many people from the ballot, but it isn’t even coherent.
Via Political Wire