Paterson Calls A Special In NY-29

[Lunar]

http://capitaltonight.com/2010/05/paterson-calls-a-special-in-ny-29/

To run concurrent with the general election.  Whoever wins will take office immediately in November, rather than in January.

[cinyc]

And it couldn't run concurrent with the primary because.....

[Lunar]

And it couldn't run concurrent with the primary because.....

Yes, that would have worked (supposing you have the party bosses select their candidates, like they did in NY-20 and NY-23 instead of an actual primary election)

[rbt48]

And it couldn't run concurrent with the primary because.....

Because New York still lives in the Dark Ages when party bosses controlled everything they could grab onto.  Heck, in this case, Patterson is clearly violating the state law on filling Congressional vacancies.

[cinyc]

And it couldn't run concurrent with the primary because.....

Because New York still lives in the Dark Ages when party bosses controlled everything they could grab onto.  Heck, in this case, Patterson is clearly violating the state law on filling Congressional vacancies.

I don't think Paterson is violating the actual text of the relevant state law, which gives Paterson control over when and whether to schedule a special election.  He may be violating the Constitution by refusing to schedule a special election, though.

Actually, I might have answered my own question, come to think of it.  I'm not sure that under the relevant New York law, Paterson could schedule the election in September - but I'd have to double check.

[Lief 🗽]

And it couldn't run concurrent with the primary because.....

Because New York still lives in the Dark Ages when party bosses controlled everything they could grab onto.  Heck, in this case, Patterson is clearly violating the state law on filling Congressional vacancies.

No, running it concurrent with the primary would have given party bosses more power, because there wouldn't have been a primary. Think before you go making incendiary statements.

[cinyc]

No, running it concurrent with the primary would have given party bosses more power, because there wouldn't have been a primary. Think before you go making incendiary statements.

Paterson has no excuse for not immediately calling a special election, like he did in NY-20 and NY-23.  NY-29 deserves representation in Congress.

[Meeker]

No, running it concurrent with the primary would have given party bosses more power, because there wouldn't have been a primary. Think before you go making incendiary statements.

Paterson has no excuse for not immediately calling a special election, like he did in NY-20 and NY-23.  NY-29 deserves representation in Congress.

I think that's debatable considering the last guy they sent there.

*joking*

[Lunar]

No, running it concurrent with the primary would have given party bosses more power, because there wouldn't have been a primary. Think before you go making incendiary statements.

Paterson has no excuse for not immediately calling a special election, like he did in NY-20 and NY-23.  NY-29 deserves representation in Congress.

I think that's debatable considering the last guy they sent there.

*joking*

Your joke tickled me pink!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So will it actually be single race with a 25 1/2 month term, as opposed to what happened in TX-22 for the 2006 election?

[JohnnyLongtorso]

So will it actually be single race with a 25 1/2 month term, as opposed to what happened in TX-22 for the 2006 election?

No, there will be two separate elections. You can't have a regulard election for a House seat that covers more than the set two-year term.

[Kevinstat]

And it couldn't run concurrent with the primary because.....

Because New York still lives in the Dark Ages when party bosses controlled everything they could grab onto.  Heck, in this case, Patterson is clearly violating the state law on filling Congressional vacancies.

No, running it concurrent with the primary would have given party bosses more power, because there wouldn't have been a primary. Think before you go making incendiary statements.

There still won't be a primary for the special election.  One might presume the parties will wait until after the primary for the full term to select a candidate for the special election, selecting whomever has won the primary.  The article Lunar's thread-starting post implied that Paterson's decision gave the party bosses more power, but in an update said that the election won't be called until October (after the primary), and I'm not sure a committee or what-not could officially nominate a candidate for a special election that has not yet been called.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For a regular (non-special) election, can any Joe or Joanne Shmoe in New York who is legally qualified for a certain elected office on the state ballot get on the ballot by collecting signatures, even if he/she has no supporters at state/county conventions?  Do conventions even endorse/"nominate" candidates in primaries like they do in Minnesota?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So will it actually be single race with a 25 1/2 month term, as opposed to what happened in TX-22 for the 2006 election?

No, there will be two separate elections. You can't have a regulard election for a House seat that covers more than the set two-year term.

Well, that's what I figured would happen normally, but Lunar's part about taking office in November rather than January made it confusing. That's not what happened in TX-22; of course there was that hilarious write-in issue.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So will it actually be single race with a 25 1/2 month term, as opposed to what happened in TX-22 for the 2006 election?

No, there will be two separate elections. You can't have a regulard election for a House seat that covers more than the set two-year term.

Well, that's what I figured would happen normally, but Lunar's part about taking office in November rather than January made it confusing. That's not what happened in TX-22; of course there was that hilarious write-in issue.

That is what happened in TX, Sekula-Gibbs won the special which Lampson didn't bother to run in and held office from November to January 3rd. Then Lampson took over with the next term having won the regular election against Write-in Sekula-Gibbs.

[rbt48]

And it couldn't run concurrent with the primary because.....

Because New York still lives in the Dark Ages when party bosses controlled everything they could grab onto.  Heck, in this case, Patterson is clearly violating the state law on filling Congressional vacancies.

No, running it concurrent with the primary would have given party bosses more power, because there wouldn't have been a primary. Think before you go making incendiary statements.

Oh, so my statement ranks as incendiary to you?  I don't think it is even close--I'm just expressing my impression of the history of party bossism in New York State and how vestages of it are still present today.

But really, if it was so compelling for Massachusetts to have an immediate fill for the vacant Senate seat after Kennedy died that the state adopted emergency legislation, then what kind of rationale can there be for leaving a Congressional seat vacant for 7 months?

[Lunar]

http://www.eveningtribune.com/homepage/x2084247731/Despite-Paterson-s-special-election-lawsuit-continues