I suspect we'll be hearing about how Mitch "suddenly passed" some time in the next 24 hours.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I think they would have incentive to still keep him on life support until the next congress is sworn in.

Until then he and his staff keep collecting paychecks.

It also guarantees the seat stays vacant for as long as possible, whereas announcing his death now leaves open the possibility that the governor appoints a replacement which might stand up even if they try to sue to block it.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    IIRC, the governor can't just name a replacement. They would have to call a special election. This special election would have allowed Thomas Massie to run, and potentially become the incumbent for the midterm election. This is why they have held off on announcing his death for so long

    Though, now it is too late to call one, so they have no more reason to keep the charade going. Even if they announce his death, the seat will remain vacant and the midterms will decide who takes the seat.

    This is my understanding of the situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Governor was never going to be able to appoint a replacement, Kentucky specifically removed Beshear's power of appointment because they saw he was a democrat.

    Realistically, there was never going to be an election before November, so in practice the "Mitch must make it past the special election deadline" was about the time between November and January. The special election would have been effective immediately, whereas the normal election is effective in January, even if the special election was on the exact same day the normal election would have been.

    Note that Lindsey Graham's death was no big deal because that republican governor had appointment power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 months ago

    It's my understanding that the Kentucky constitution gives the governor power to appoint a replacement - then the legislature passed a law that took that power away since the governor is a Democrat.

    But that law would obviously be found unconstitutional if challenged. They'd have to pass an amendment to take that power away, not a law.

    But Democrats did Democrat things and just rolled over instead of fighting.

  • source
  • parent