I recall this question came up before the election, mostly regarding Kirk’s ability to vote on the healthcare bill. Republicans were [apparently] firm at the time that Kirk could NOT vote after the election. Period.
Link & money quotes:
www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/barnes-massachusetts-senatorial-race-and-obamacare
” ... based on Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, and the U.S. Constitution, Republican attorneys said Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day, period. Brown meets the age, citizenship, and residency requirements in the Constitution to qualify for the Senate. “Qualification” does not require state “certification,” the lawyers said.
An appointed senator’s right to vote is not dependent on whether his successor has been certified, the lawyers said.” “ ... The Republican lawyers also said Senate precedent is clear on when a new senator’s term begins and the term of an appointed senator ends. In a number of cases, the pay of a senator who replaces an appointee was determined to begin on the day after the senator’s election. “
The law states:
(f) Upon failure to choose a senator in congress or upon a vacancy in said office the governor shall make 3 a temporary appointment to fill the vacancy; provided, however, that the person so appointed shall serve 4 until the election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill such vacancy pursuant to paragraph 5 (a) or paragraph (c); and provided further, any person so appointed shall be of the same political party as 6 the person vacating the office and thereby creating the vacancy.”
I guess the key words are “qualification of the person duly elected”
No wonder they are slowing the process down.