I heard Bob Beckel on Hannity last night, discussing this very thing. He said that the Dems (and he's one of them) wouldn't dare delay it until after a vote on healthcare. Because, unsaid, was that there'd be a $hitstorm if they tried it.
That being said, I'd like to know a few things:
1) Is the Brown campaign and/or the Republican Party ready to swarm MA with lawyers, just like the Dems did in Floriduh in 2000?
2) Does Brown and/or the Republican Party have a media campaign ready to whip up public sentiment in the event of fraud and/or delaying tactics?
3) Isn't it a law and/or part of the Senate rules that when there's a special election, as soon as the polls close whomever was holding that seat beforehand ceases to be a Senator? IOW, at 8 P.M. EST tonight, Paul Kirk is promoted to citizen, and if there is a dispute/failure to seat Brown (assuming he wins) then the seat is simply vacant...which would make for the same effect (the Dems would only have 59 seats, less than the 3/5 majority needed to stop a filibuster).
Anyone who knows the answers to the above is invited to answer, so that all of us can be informed.
@NorahODonnell Brown camp sources tells me: “Longer lines outside Boston than inside. Not good sign for Coakley. Scott’s voters highly motivated.” 1/19 11:03 A.M. -
Again, FWIW. OT, sending Mr. Robinson a c-note to keep this amazing site running smoothly.
“The Senate subcommittee and committee concluded, based on its hearing and review, that “the term of service of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy in an unexpired term ends on the day when his successor is elected by the people.” 1939 Congressional Record, p. 998. There was evidently no controversy among either the subcommittee or full committee regarding this legal conclusion, and the committee then presented a resolution to the Senate for adoption, expressing the view that Berry’s term of service expired on November 8, 1938, the date of the special election. As Senator Connally, a member of the subcommittee, explained to the Senate, the fact that the Tennessee statute purported to extend Berry’s term until the qualification of his successor was of no force because the statute was “plainly in conflict with the provisions of the seventeenth amendment.” Accordingly, the Senate adopted the proposed resolution without dissent. 1939 Congressional Record, p. 1058.
Based on this authority, it would appear that a valid point of order could be raised as to Senator Kirk’s participation in Senate proceedings after January 19, 2010.
(posted in: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2430289/posts)
If Scott Brown wins he has to get a certificate from the MA Sec’y of State that says he is the winner...then Dingy Harry has to seat him.
BTW, the law the Dims passed when Romney was in office says that once the election is held the seat automatically becomes open until the winner is seated. So Kirks threats are idle.