[Torie]

Yup, all of the above could happen, and the Dem would serve until Jan 3, 2003, at which time his term would expire, and he would be replaces by Forrester, who won the other election for the term commencing Jan 3, 2002, in which the vote against him was split between The Torch, who was still on the ballot, Bruce Spingsteen (ow whomever), who was a write in, and some ersatz Dem who was really a GOP ringer, who also ran a write in compaign campaigning on left wing issues, and got a few more votes.

[marajade]

You gotta wonder why they didn't tell him to hit the road before the primaries. They must of known this stuff would come.

[IMRight]

Yup, all of the above could happen, and the Dem would serve until Jan 3, 2003, at which time his term would expire, and he would be replaces by Forrester, who won the other election for the term commencing Jan 3, 2002

Oh don't get me wrong. I agree how the law should be read. I'm just pointing out how sill the interpretation some here (and gleefully on DU) have made.

Let's read the statute again and interpret it the way they would have it read:

"If a vacancy shall happen in the representation of this state in the United States senate, it shall be filled at the general election next succeeding the happening thereof"

If Torch quits the day after he loses an election.... did a "vacancy happen..." yup.

When is the "the general election next succeeding the happening thereof"???? - Nov 2004.

I know that isn't constitutional. But it's every bit as valid a reading of that law as the ones that say Torch quiting "cancels" this Nov's election.