"Note"-iced

From ABC News' The Note: "You thought New Jersey was complicated — Roll Call 's Pershing gets into the complexities of the prospect of not one but two special elections, in addition to the November general election, to completely replace the late Rep. Patsy Mink (D). The time difference tends to quash interest in Hawaii politics, but this fracas is worth paying attention to." LINK

Gee, and I thought it was because we were so solidly Democratic.

Comments

I for one am sick of al the bickering and complaining over the special election. As someone living in District 2, I am definitely interested in seeing the seat filled by a qualified candidate ASAP. Preferably one who has similar beliefs - and guts - as Patsy Mink. The more I've learned about her lately, the more I respect her and the job she did.

Yes, a special election isn't cheap, but things happen sometimes- and it's not like holding a special election for someone who decided they'd rather try for a different public office, or someone who had to give up their office due to being indicted and imprisoned.

I'd like to go beyond all the conspiracy theories and present the possibility that Mink and her family truly believed she would recover and be able to return to her office, and that the majority of her constituents, myself included, held the same hopes.

Seems to me it would make more sense for the Governor to appoint someone (from Mink's own party) to fill out the term. The Congress is not likely to do anything very significant this close to an election anyway.

Well, there's a vote on Iraq and one on the Homeland Security department coming up, so...

Man. Reading that story made my head spin. Sometimes I wonder if we're starting to close in on Florida as the official Freak State of the nation.

I'm no fan of Bob McDermott, but the man's in a no-win situation. You can't campaign against a dead candidate. History is rife with folks winning elections post-humously.

I will say the uniform chanting by Democrats that we should vote for the late Rep. Patsy Mink "as a tribute" makes me uneasy. It certainly doesn't help them dispel the image of being desperate to hang on to power, however they can.

No huhu, Ryan. Florida has us beat a mile. ;)

I wish the D party would show a little more initiative, borrow a page from New Jersey's history (1969), and petition the HI Supremes to replace Patsy with a replacement D candidate on the November ballot. District 2 constits would get a choice of viable candidates from each major party, and the state saves maybe $2M in the process.

Cayetano is already going to the Supremes to request approval to set aside the 60 day notification period requirement in state election law before a special election. Why not also have the D party petition for a replacement candidate at the same time?

I would have to go on the side to forgoe a special election to fill the short 30 or so days remaining on Patsy Mink's term unless that special election can occur on the same day as the General Election... November 5. This would save taxpayers some money.

That said, there is no reason to immediately fill the 2nd Congressional district seat. Why? Precedent was set back in April 1990 when Senator Sparky Matsunaga died in office. Then Governor Waihee appointed U.S. Representative Daniel Akaka to fill Sparky's seat. Dan's seat meanwhile went unfilled for 5 months until a special election held in conjunction with the September primary election that year. I think Patsy Mink won that and got elected to a full term to the U.S. House and had been there ever since.

Okay, there are a few things that need to be said here.

First, the tradition has been that House members are not appointed, because that's the body of "the people."

Ken, if you're proposing that the Supreme Court appoint a Democrat to take the ballot space for the remainder of Mink's term, I don't have a problem with that--it's only a month. But if you're saying that it should appoint a Democratic candidate for the new term, I've got to disagree. There may be a great many Democrats who would like the opportunity to represent the people, now that an incumbent they respected no longer holds the office. The supremes should never be allowed to CHOOSE a candidate on behalf of a political party.

Ryan, the "tribute" vote campaign should make you more than uneasy. It should make you want to puke your guts up, as it does me. I simply can't believe any publicly elected official--let alone someone with the stature of Senator Inouye--would propose such a degradation of our electoral process. A TRIBUTE VOTE?! What the *&%*&#@#$ is he thinking, and who does he think we are? Voting for someone based on an ethnicity, or a parentage, or even on the cuteness of his or her sign-wavers is stupid enough, but THOSE reasons, at least, have to do with the candidate who's actually running for office. Voting for a dead body as a "tribute" is an abomination of democracy. Does Senator Inouye want Americans to vote for the candidates (or even the parties) they believe will represent them in the best way, or does he want them to vote for dead bodies who, when they were alive, were excellent representatives?

The idiotic Democratic leadership should come right out and say, "Put a check-mark next to Patsy's name, because that will give us a fairer election, with representation from both major parties." The Democratic Party has a right to that--it need not make any apologies in asking for it.

You're right, Ry. When esteemed leaders of the Democratic Party say to vote for someone as a "tribute," what they're really saying is that they don't care WHY you vote for them--all they care is that you vote for them. That pisses me off to no end, although it certainly doesn't surprise me, I guess.

If Patsy were alive, I'd like to think that she'd dismiss this "tribute vote" thing as the insult to democracy that it is. She'd say something like, "Hey, this party has represented you well for a long time. Don't vote for me as a tribute--vote for a ballot that will give you the opportunity to select someone else from the same party, if that's what you want."

As a point of clarification, I would not support the appointment of an individual to Patsy's seat, even for one month, due to the fact that it would be unconstitutional, the seats gotta be filled via election, for the reason that Scrivener stated, that it is the "peoples house", and election is the only way. However, I would support the Supremes allowing the D party to replace Patsy with someone else on the November primary. Please note that the Supremes would not choose the replacement, the D party would. Similar to how I understand the New Jersey D party dealt with a dead candidate in their 1969 primary.

Now I understand that there may be a boatload of individuals wanting to run for Patsy's seat now that she has passed, but the solution I propose is what would have happened if Patsy had passed just a few days earlier. As you may recall, the media made a point of noting that the Thursday right before Patsy died was the last day the D executive committee could have proposed a replacement cadidate for Patsy's seat. Getting the Supreme's "OK", is only to allow the Gov, or the D executive committee to use that process now, even though the deadline has passed.

Post a Comment