Minnesota Sen.-elect Coleman won't take office until January

ST. PAUL, Minnesota (CNN) -- Minnesota Sen.-elect Norm Coleman said Friday that he will not take office until January 7, leaving interim Independent Sen. Dean Barkley in office until the next Congress convenes.

"While I am eager to begin serving the people of Minnesota, it appears that an earlier swearing in will not give any added seniority for Minnesota," Coleman said in a statement. "I will look forward to beginning my service for this great state on January 7th."

Coleman's decision could have implications for who controls the Senate during a "lame duck" session that begins next week.

Currently, there are 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats and two Independents -- Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont, who caucuses with Democrats, and Barkley, who has not announced who he will support.

Barkley was appointed to the Senate by Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura to serve out the remainder of the term of Democratic Sen. Paul Wellstone, who died in a plane crash October 25. Coleman, a Republican, then defeated Wellstone's ballot replacement, former Vice President Walter Mondale, in the November 5 midterm election for a full six-year term.

There was some question under Minnesota law whether Coleman would take over from Barkley as soon as the election results were certified on November 19 or wait until January 7, when the new Congress convenes.

Coleman's statement said the decision to wait until January came after "an extensive inquiry and review" by his transition team.

Also complicating Senate control during a "lame duck" session is what happens in Missouri, where Republican Jim Talent defeated Sen. Jean Carnahan for the remaining four years of the term her late husband, Gov. Mel Carnahan, who won posthumously in 2000 shortly after dying in a plane crash.

Under Missouri law, Talent will take over as soon as the results are certified, rather than waiting until January. Once he replaces Carnahan, Republicans will have control of the Senate, regardless of which party Barkley supports.

State law in Missouri calls for local canvassing boards to meet "as soon as practicable" to certify the results. Secretary of State Matt Blunt has said that process could take two weeks or longer.

However, in January, once the next Senate is sworn in, Republicans will have control, with at least 51 seats. Democrats will have at least 46 seats and 47 votes, with Jeffords' support.

•In South Dakota, the election night vote count put Democrat Sen. Tim Johnson less than 600 votes ahead of his GOP challenger, Rep. John Thune, which could trigger a recount once results are certified.

•In Louisiana, Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu will face state Elections Commissioner Suzanne Haik Terrell, a Republican, in a December 7 runoff triggered when Landrieu failed to capture a majority on Tuesday

I see no need for an interim senator in MN. In past situations as this, the governor has waited until the election was held and named the election winner to fill out the last few weeks of the unexpired term. Ventura named Barkley to deflect from the ongoing election situation. Ventura was not acting in the interest of the "Constitution" at all, as I see it. Ventura did not want to name the prolife Coleman had he won because to Ventura abortion "rights" is the most important political issue.

Well, then, so much the better. The debate on Friday to which all the candidates on the ballot were invited, but from which Mondale stayed home in a snit, was not disrupted. The debate on Monday, at which prima donna Mondale condescended to appear, suddenly had to compete with Jesse Ventura's announcement. Upshot: Mondale got a well-deserved back of the hand.

No, remember the "democratic" mantra, it's the "people's will."

I prefer the mantra of a Constitutional Republic: "rule of law". Jesse Ventura is the lawfully elected governor of the state of Minnesota, in whom is vested certain powers including the interim appointment of U.S. Senators.

I see no need for an interim senator in MN.

Idiotic nonsense. There is every reason to expect some substantive business to occur in the lame duck session of Congress, and Ventura would be derelict in his duties if he failed to provide Minnesota with both of its Constitutionally alloted votes in the Senate.

As for your dissatisfaction with his selection of Barkley, put some ice on it. Ventura is the lawfully elected governor, and the law places that decision in his hands.

The appointment of Barkley is legal, but I do not think it was necessary. Most governors would have waited until after the election and appointed the winner for the interim session, wouldn't you think? Also, what if there was no interim session planned? Would Ventura have named anyone on an interim basis in that case? It seems like Ventura may have even said immediately after the Wellstone death that he would not name an interim senator given the timing of the election, but I could be wrong on that.

I would guess that he found that Senate rules wouldn't give him extra seniority.

No, that has little to do with it.

Tell it to Coleman. Again, this is what he said, "...it appears that an earlier swearing in will not give any added seniority for Minnesota."

There is Senate precedent at play here...

Read my post again and you will note that I said Senate rules may prevent Coleman from being seated early.

However, although this has been repeated a number of times, I've seen nobody cite anything specific about such a rule. Whether it does or doesn't exist, I doubt very much it is based on a belief that his term would exceed 6 years. It is clear he would be completing the remainder of one term and then starting another. Just as Talent will be doing, and nobody is suggesting this is a problem for Talent.

I agree that the dims would have tried to get the extra two months out of Mondale if he had won. Regardless of state law allowing the appointment of the winner in MN, federal law has precident over state law. Coleman can not be sworn in until Jan.

He could have legally served an unexpired term ending at noon Jan. 3, 2003. Then he would be sworn in to a full term at that time. In November 1972, LA Governor Edwin Washington Edwards appointed his former intraparty rival J. Bennett Johnston, Jr., to fill the two months left in the term of the late Senator Allen J. Ellender, D-LA. Then Johnston was sworn in for the first of his four terms in the Senate at noon, Jan. 3, 1973. Mary Landrieu was sworn in to succeed Johnston early in 1997. Johnston was a strong supporter of Landrieu as his successor. This is not the same as extending a term. It would be extending a term if someone served a few weeks past a Jan. 3, not before a Jan. 3.

Ventura is the lawfully elected governor, and the law places that decision in his hands.

Jesse is currently our lawfully-elected petulent child. Coleman had every right to ask Barkely to resign the term so he can get some minor seniority points, but it says volumes that the Inde-Petulence Party (oops, Independence Party) refuses to give up their 15 minutes of fame.

Barkley seems to be 'of a piece' with Ventura, he's Ventura's boy, and won't resign. I can't wait 'til we can see Ventura's back (and Barkeley's) on the way out.

I'm proud of Coleman, he has evaluated the possibilities and sees that protesting this or contesting it (even just in the newspapers) puts him on the same level as Jesse. All that "new tone, etc.": Coleman actually acts like he means it.

The discussion is that Coleman could be appointed to the remaining month of *Wellstone's* current term. Then on Jan 3 he would begin his elected term. No conflict, perfectly legal.

Barkley has determined he wants to park his rump in that Senate seat as long as possible, and he won't leave until he has to.

"Coleman can not be sworn in until Jan."

The MN law says that the winner succeeds to the remainder of the vacated term, not that the new term is extended backwards. They are two separate terms, one filled by election, and one filled by appointment mandated by the law. The law is quite clear in making the distinction between the two terms. It simply mandates that a specific person - the newly elected Senator - be the person to finish the current vacated term. There is no conflict with the Constitution. Coleman could take his seat on the 19th of this month, resign the 20th, and take his seat for the next term in Jan.

"It is clear he would be completing the remainder of one term and then starting another. Just as Talent will be doing, and nobody is suggesting this is a problem for Talent."

Talent is actually completing 4+ years of a term. No election for the following term has taken place yet. Mel Carnahan was killed prior to the 2000 election in a plane crash. He won the election and his wife was appointed. This election was a special election for the remainder of that term which ends in 2006.

I see no need for an interim senator in MN. ... Ventura named Barkley to deflect from the ongoing election situation.

Huh? Ventura explicitly addressed the "ongoing election situation" -- by condemning the Democrats' Wellstone funeral/rally.

Ventura did not want to name the prolife Coleman had he won because to Ventura abortion "rights" is the most important political issue.

Ventura also specifically refused to appointed a Democrat because of the Wellstone funeral. And he chose to appoint someone before the election, before he had any idea who would win.

As I heard it reported, it was expected that since Wellstone was a Dem, that Ventura was expected/obligated to appoint a Dem. Ventura essentially said "screw you" to the Dems.

Ventura rose above Demopublican politics, and gave the finger to both parties -- kudos to him!

As for Colemna's prolife policies, who cares? Abortion is here to stay. Get used to it.

Just as Talent will be doing, and nobody is suggesting this is a problem for Talent.

sorry, it is not senate rule, it is senate precedent. exactly the same situation arose years ago, a death just before an election with new guy elected, and the issue was decided by them on the basis of the Constitution, senate-term-is-six-years, statement. i think it takes 3/4 vote to change such a "parlimentary-type" decision, but i could be way off base on that. ventura could have appointed coleman to fill the remainder of wellstone's term, by MN law, but he chose not to do that.

the situation with Talent is entirely different. he was elected specifically to fill out husband carnahan's term, which wife carnahan was appointed to for the past two years. Talent will serve the remainder of that term: FOUR years only.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.