Secretary of State Bill Galvin has asked outgoing Congressman Marty Meehan not to resign until late spring, which would precipitate a fall special election, rather than one in the summer if Meehan resigned sooner. Galvin’s stated interest is to promote a potentially higher turnout since voters tune out during the summer and could be on vacation on election day.
The real gems in this story are the candidates’ reactions:
Candidates: When should the election be?
City Councilor Eileen Donoghue, D-Lowell: “Ideally, sometime in September for a primary is better for the district in terms of getting out the vote. Summer seems like a tough time to get people interested.”
Rep. James Eldridge, D-Acton: “I don’t really have an opinion. I want to make sure that there is enough time for people to learn about every candidate and make up their minds.”
Rep. Barry Finegold, D-Andover: “The election shouldn’t be in the middle of the summer. It should be sometime in September.”
Rep. James Miceli, D-Wilmington: “I honestly don’t have a preference. Either or, I’m ready to go.”
David O’Brien, D-Concord: “September. It’s when we’re used to having primaries. It’s when we’ll probably have the biggest turnout.”
Niki Tsongas, D-Lowell: “Whenever it is, we’re prepared for it, but we don’t want the 5th (Congressional District) to not be represented for an extended period of time,” said her senior campaign adviser Doug Rubin.
Middlesex County Sheriff James DiPaola also is running but could not be reached for comment.
Most candidates said either “no opinion, whenever” or “September”, but want a good turnout. However, the Tsongas campaign, no doubt seeking to capitalize fully on name recognition, favored an earlier election in order to prevent the district from not being “represented for an extended period of time.” Sure… But as Galvin bluntly put it “Generally speaking, Congress doesn’t do anything in July or August.” So true.
So, what say you? Sooner or later?
There will be pressure on Meehan to hold off one week later if it looks like there will be a Lowell Primary in order to hold the primary on the same day.
<
p>
It’s not what should happen. This is another instance of those in power skirting the spirit of the law in order to get what they want. The law was written to take discretion out of the election scheduling process.
<
p>
What is more important? Waiting for an election or having the district go longer without representation. I say the latter is more important.
Galvin doesn’t want the date to match up with a municipal election:
Unless I’m mistaken, the preliminaries in Lowell, Lawrence, Haverhill & Methuen would be on Sept 18th.
<
p>
Meehan announced he’s submiting his letter of resignation on May 9th, which would put the special primary on Sept 4th. It’s the day after Labor Day, so not great for turnout, but maybe it’s OK since it would potentially avoid two elections in successive weeks.
He and Galvin are flouting the law. I hope a group such as common cause sues to have the clock start now. This is ridiculous and it is one more way Meehan is sticking it to the 5th District. I don’t live in the district any more but the rest of my family does.
So the race doesn’t have a direct bearing on me as a voter. My question is how does one establish standing in order to file a lawsuit to force the issue? In other words, how can one sue a sitting Member of Congress to force his resignation? I don’t see how the law is being flouted. Perhaps my Republican friend could provide some illumination on this issue.
He has done as much in my estimation by accepting publicly the offer made by the University. It is suing the state to go by the spirit of the law.
<
p>
<
p>
That’s exactly what I believe Meehan and Galvin are doing, my word choice was precise. The law was changed to take discretion out of setting a date. It was determined that 145-160 days was enough time to mount a campaign and to ensure the minimum amount of time would go by without representation.
<
p>
No matter when the special election is, turnout will be low. It is going to come down to GOTV, one way or the other. The 5 point jump in voter turnout does not justify the district going longer without representation.
This past election was about asking people to check back in, so why hold the next election when a lot of people are checked out for the summer or for Labor Day? Special elections are generally low turnout affairs, but the decision on when the election will be held is not one left to chance, and steps should be taken to insure that it is held when the largest number of voters are checked in.
<
p>
The last congressional special election was held on September 11, 2001, and turnout was higher than expected because of events of the day. But seperate out the attacks and the higher than expected voter participation because of it, and you are left with the reality that it was a low key election with little attention before Labor Day. That last week was critical to voters, as they returned from summer activities and focused on the special.
<
p>
I worked that special, and know that in order to reach voters of the 9th the Lynch campaign ran ads on Cape Cod radio.
<
p>
In the interest of disclosure, I am working on the Donoghue campaign, and strategically for us I can argue it either way, as she, I believe, will report the most money in the first quarter and I believe will be strong in the field, but I find a primary in August or the day after Labor Day to be contrary to voter inclusion.
Will argue for a September primary on the bases of voter inclusion/turnout and because their campaigns are more viable the longer the schedule. This goes for Republicans as well, because (let’s face it) an earlier schedule will mean a greater likelihood of defeat at the hands of a Tsongas nomination from an early primary and subsequent early general.
it is not my fault that people will be checked back out. If they care enough they will vote, if not they won’t. That should not be the governments concern. The concern of the government should be to follow the spirit of the law and not massage it to suit their needs.
I can’t imagine you were a supporter of the law, as it was written to keep a Republican from being appointed to Kerry’s seat if he bacame president, if I read your history of posts correctly. I apologize if that isn’t the case. I do think that we should encourage voter participation, but that might be overly democratic for some.
Democracy is served by holding an election. The willingness of people to participate in that election is not reflective of Democracy being served. If you are too lazy to vote and to educate yourself that is your problem, not mine.
<
p>
WTF? No, no it isn’t. It’s an example of those in power obeying the law. Meehan isn’t required to resign until he dang well feels like retiring, and he’s very welcome to consider the ramifications of his timing. Choosing when to retire after considering these ramifications is in no way “skirting the law” — rather, it is both legal and reasonable.
time without a congressman. His resignation was always going to be effective July 1, 2007. For time tables and what that means for the representation of the district please see below.
That’s playing by the rules.
<
p>
Your beef is with the law, not Meehan. He’s not skirting the law by choosing the date of his resignation.
<
p>
To say he’s skirting the law is flat out false. You may feel he’s acting unethically, not in the best interests of his constituents, or just plain selfishly… but that isn’t “skirting the law.”
Using the law as written not to the original intent, but to serve is own purposes.
<
p>
Is that better. To me they mean the same thing.
it is amazing to me that if you are so clairvoyant as to KNOW the original intent of each and every law, that you bother to carry on a conversation here. i mean, you surely must already know what each and every one of us not only will say, but the what we really mean by it. give original intent a rest. you’re overdoing it. in the grand scheme of thing, just how important is his date of resignation anyway? does the end of the war or my health care coverage hinge on it?
As far as I’m concerned, Meehan is still the congressman from the 5th district of Massachusetts. As such, I assume and expect that he’ll fulfill his responsibilities until he tenders his resignation. He gave a speech on March 23rd in support of the supplemental funding bill for the war, well after he had accepted the UML job.
<
p>
It doesn’t seem to me that the delay of his resignation is being put forth to help or hinder any of the candidates vying for the seat. That would bother me; if, as often happens in state elections, the person setting the date for the election did so to maximize the chances of their ally in the race (Trav…)
<
p>
One of the jobs of the Secretary of State is to take steps to encourage voter participation. If he can boost turnout by having a conversation with Meehan and asking him to wait a month or so to resign, I have no problem with that.
So whether he tenders his resignation today or on May 9 it will not alter the date his resignation is effective. The clock for purposes of the special election starts upon receipt of the resignation letter.
<
p>
Your logic is flawed.
As I understand it, your argument is that the election should be set according to the law, which is based on his resignation. You argue that by delaying his resignation, he is disingenuously extending the period before his replacement is elected.
<
p>
You say that “he has [resigned] in [your] estimation by accepting publicly the offer made by the university.”
<
p>
But if he’s still doing the job, still showing up for work, still giving speeches, casting votes, and kissing babies, then how is the delay of his submission of his resignation contrary to the law, letter or spirit?
It has been widely reported that Congressman Meehan will start his new job at UML on July 1, 2007. The start of the state fiscal year. This has always been what the “effective” date of his resignation is. But the clock starts on the day the letter is received by the Governor.
<
p>
If Congressman Meehan were to have resigned on Thursday when he accepted his job offer, the special election would have been held 145 – 160 days from that date. As Thursday was March 29, 2007 the special election would have been between August 21, 2007 to September 5, 2007. That is a time period of 51 – 66 days without a congressman for the 5th Congressional District.
<
p>
If the Congressman resigns on May 9, 2007 as has been reported then the special election will be held 145 – 160 days from that date. This means the special election will be sometime between October 1, 2007 and October 16, 2007. This means the district will go without representation for 92 to 107 days.
<
p>
Now no matter if your republican or democrat; liberal or conservative; young or old; white, black, brown, yellow, blue, or purple; no matter what you are, you can’t change the fact that by sending in his resignation on May 9, 2007, which will be effective on July 1, 2007, Meehan has the net effect of having the disrict be without a Member of Congress for 41 to 56 more days than if he submits it now depending on the date o f the special election.
<
p>
Those are facts, not feel good, not well he’s still staying in office. No those are facts. Any questions?
…it is not beyond the realm of possibility–or the law, for that matter–that a congressman can serve as a congressman while holding a “day job.”
<
p>
In other words, Meehan can serve as a congressman, while holding a “day job,” until his successor is sworn in. Or forever, for that matter.
<
p>
You might not like that, but, as far as I can tell, it’s true. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
<
p>
As far as I can tell, the only impediment to that would be if the “day job” were to be simumltaneously a member of the executive branch of the federal government and a member of the legislative branch. Of course, that doesn’t adhere here.
but is not germaine, since it has been reported that he will leave Congress on July 1, 2007.
<
p>
It is interesting though.
If he were earning 15% or less of his House Salary. See below for more details.
<
p>
Nice try though raj. 😉
Actually, there are restrictions on the outside income a Member of Congress can earn while he/she is serving. Not to mention the fact that if he were to stay, he’d have to recuse himself from any votes on issues affecting UMASS, which means pretty much any higher education bill, numerous appropriations bills, etc. That’s why you don’t see a lot of Congressman holding down another full-time job.
You can find the rules regarding outside employement here I’ve copied them here:
<
p>
<
blockquote>Members and those employees earning at least 120% of the GS-15 rate of basic pay ($77,080 in 1992):
<
p>
May not receive more than 15% of a House Member’s salary in total outside earned income ($19,425 in 1992).
<
p>
May not accept compensation for providing professional services involving a fiduciary relationship, or for being employed by an organization that provides such services.
<
p>
May not allow their names to be used, regardless of compensation, by organizations providing fiduciary services.
<
p>
May not accept compensation for serving as a board member or officer of any organization.
<
p>
May not accept compensation for teaching, without prior written approval from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
<
p>
Must file annual financial disclosure forms.
<
blockquote>
<
p>
By any measure, I think $280,000 rises to a level above 15% of a Member of Congress’ salary.
….(in part) is this:
<
p>
PART I. Administration of the Government /Title VIII. Elections/Chapter 54./Section 140. Senators and representatives in congress; vacancies
<
p>
The day so appointed shall not be more than 160 nor less than 145 days after the date that a vacancy is created or a failure to choose occurs. Filing a letter of resignation creates a vacancy under this section, even if the resignation is not effective until some later time, but the date of the election to fill a vacancy under this section shall be after the resignation is effective.
<
p>
There is not a bit of case law that speaks to this provision so Congressman Meehan can resign whenever he likes and start the clock at that time. You may not like it but for you to suggest that the law which was specifically written to take effect with actual resignation and not constructive resignation is being flouted is unsupportable by the “facts” that you present because they amount to nothing more than “I don’t like the way this law effects me or my political sensibility when it is applied in a manner fully consistent with its effect”.
<
p>
The actual facts are that the law is what the law is and the clock will start running when the resignation is tendered and you happen not to like that. It seems to me that what you are actually saying is that you want this law of the Commonwealth being interpreted and applied to your personal and political satisfaction and that it would be proper to insist upon it with litigation. There is absolutely no basis for a suit to compel this resignation except political dissatisfaction with legally proper action which is not a colorable claim. I suspect if it was filed it would be dismissed summarily.
I see what you’re saying, but I don’t really care that much. I’m much more concerned with who takes the seat than with when they’re elected. I’m also more concerned with what Meehan plans on doing with his $5M war chest.
You know, the written letter of resignation he filed with the Speaker of the House to demonstrate his committment to term limits!
<
p>
Mr. Meehan certainly has an interesting history with electoral correspondence.