[ChrisInAR]

"...Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day, period."

Sounds to me like they are grasping @ straws. Won't Kirk remain Senator until Brown is sworn-in?

[shield]

NO...he will not. He is out. Here are two links read both of them and you'll understand...he is no longer a senator Wednesday....state certification does not matter...this is the 17th Amendment to the Constitution..it is very clear.
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/01/gop-attorneys-mass-dem-senator-kirk-cant-vote-after-tuesday/
http://www.d1040331.dotsterhost.com/applications/serendipity/index.php?/archives/197-Can-Senator-Kirk-Vote-after-January-19.html

[C210N]

Won't Kirk remain Senator until Brown is sworn-in?

There was some postings earlier that strongly opined Kirk was senator only until his successor's election and qualification. OTOH, a Scott Brown win would mean Scott would not be seated until certified. This leaves a window where the seat is unoccupied, since at the end of Tuesday, with a Scott win, Scott will have been elected... AND qualified (right age, citizen, etc).

[The_Reader_David]

Evidently in the 1930's the Senate itself gave an interpretation of the relevant section of the 17th Amendment:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

which held that the moment a new Senator is elected, the appointed Senator is no longer a Senator.

If this was incorporated into the Senate rules, it would take 67 Senators (or 66 if one is missing) to change the rule.

[rintense]

According to what I’ve read, as soon as the winner is declared, he is the Senator. There is no wait for the state to certify the results. It is immediate.