And still more on the special election in Nevada's 2nd Congressional District

By Richard K. Barry

Just because I have been following this story for so long, I thought I might as well close the loop. This is the one about the Sept. 13th special election in Nevada's 2nd Congressional District, which, you may recall, is necessary because former Rep. Dean Heller was appointed to the Senate to replace John Ensign, who resigned amidst a sex scandal having to do with the wife of a staffer.

In Nevada, for reasons unclear to me, a primary cannot be used to determine party candidates for special elections. The Secretary of State of Nevada, Ross Miller (D), initially ruled that multiple Republicans and Democrats could run to fill the vacant seat, which meant that a Democrat might be able to sneak through with many candidates running in what is traditionally a Republican seat. This was what they were calling the Battle Royale scenario.

If this is starting to get confusing, just consider that if many Democratic and Republican candidates ran, it could allow an unexpected result, which might have been the only way a Democrat could win.

Anyway, the court ruled on July 5th that parties could in fact choose a singular candidate to run under their party banner, which is what will happen.

It seems as well that both parties have already determined their nominees. Republican Mark Amodei, of the really weird "China will take over America if we raise the debt ceiling" political ad, will take on Nevada State Treasurer Kate Marshall.

Not that it matters anymore, but nut job Tea Party darling Sharron Angle had been in the running earlier but dropped out for reasons only known to herself.

I don't know that the Democrats can't win the seat, but having a crazy person like Angle in the mix or a quirky Battle Royale scenario might have been their best hope. A Democrats has never won a general election for the 2nd District since the district was created after the 1980 census.

Not to go on about this, though I see that I already have, but the most interesting part of this whole story may be the extent to which local courts can have an impact on electoral outcomes. I'm no expert on election law, but it does vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and, as we know, especially in general elections, both sides have teams of lawyers ready to swoop in at the slightest hint of impropriety or, shall we say, at the opportunity to create impropriety.

What was it that Shakespeare said about lawyers in Henry VI?

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Yet another update on the Nevada 2nd special election -- Sharron Angle is out

By Richard K. Barry

 

Somehow I missed a development in the special election coming this fall to fill the Nevada 2nd Congressional seat vacated by Dean Heller when he replaced John Ensign in the U.S. Senate after Ensign resigned amid an ethics inquiry.

The big news is that, Sharron Angle, Tea Party star, and failed Nevada Senate candidate, has decided not to seek the seat after seriously gearing up to take a shot at it.

It's all very interesting, with elements of local intrigue, but it boiled down to the fact that a judge ruled that the political parties must pick their candidate, one candidate per party, for the ballot to take place on Sept. 13th.

This overturned Secretary of State Ross Miller's earlier decision that anyone could run in what would have amounted to a free-for-all.

As it seemed unlikely that Angle would get the Republican Party nod, she apparently decided she didn't like the odds of running in a field that would include a GOP sanctioned nominee. Instead, she was clearly hoping for a very crowded field in which she might benefit from a strong Tea Party base and good vote splits.

Democrats were also hoping for the free-for-all scenario on the same theory that many candidates could potentially split the conservative vote in a way beneficial to them.

But it's not over yet as the Nevada Supreme Court will hear arguments on June 28th. There is even some talk that the Sept. 13th election might be delayed to give the court more time to render a decision.

Currently, 28 candidates have filed to run, including 14 Republicans and 9 Democrats.

Still hard to know what will happen here, both in the courts and at the ballot box. I should note that McCain took the district by a slim 88 votes against Obama out of 335,720 cast in 2008, though the Republican (Heller) took the Congressional race by more than 10% in the same year.

It's interesting that Angle dropped out before the case wound its way through the courts.

Here is what she had to say, as reported in the National Journal:

Current outcomes concerning the special election have made this election in Nevada an illegitimate process that disenfranchises the electorate. Clearly, no solution that the Supreme Court can make will correct the injury to free and open elections caused by ambiguous laws and subsequent lawsuits. 

While criticizing back room deals by a "select group of people" she also indicated that she didn't want to run in a free-for-all scenario either, which are the only options currently under consideration by the Nevada Supreme Court.

Now it seems that the only process she would accept is a primary system, which is disallowed by Nevada state law.

Who know? It sounds like she didn't like the way things were shaping up and decided to take a hike by pissing in all directions.

Angle has thus far given no clear indication of future plans. Too bad, if only for the entertainment value. She certainly puts on a good show - crazy, but good.

What I find most interesting in all of this, though, is the length to which the GOP establishment may be willing to go to ensure they don't repeat the mistakes of 2010 with crazy Tea Party-backed candidates.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

The strange case of the special election in Nevada's 2nd Congressional District

By Richard K. Barry

 
This has received some coverage, but in the event that people haven't focused on it, there has been an interesting development in Nevada's 2nd Congressional District.

You may recall that this is the seat vacated by Dean Heller, who was appointed by Governor Brian Sandoval to fill out the remainder of John Ensign's Senate term. Ensign resigned in disgrace after having admitted an affair with the wife of one of his senior aids. It may come as no surprise, by the way, that Heller, Sandoval, and Ensign are all Republicans.

What makes this one interesting is that, in Nevada, state law stipulates that there can be no primary to narrow down the choices that would run under a party banner, as usually happens in other jurisdictions.

But other than the prohibition on a primary, it was not immediately clear how the law would be applied. In other words, there was ambiguity as to whether all comers would be allowed to run for the vacated seat, or whether state party committees would be allowed to pick one candidate to run as "the" Democrat and "the" Republican.

Given the fact that this is a district where the Republicans are strong, it's not surprising that Republicans were hoping that the rules would be interpreted according to the second option, that they be allowed to pick one person to run as their standard bearer so that the vote is not split. Since Democrats would be a longer shot, they likely wanted the first option that anyone be allowed to run. Clearly they are hoping that many candidates would split the vote in strange ways and perhaps allow a Democrat to sneak up the middle.

Well, last Monday, the Secretary of State for Nevada, Ross Miller, who just happens to be a Democrat, interpreted the rules to say that anyone can run. The Republicans are up in arms saying that this was a partisan decision sure to favour Democrats. So far, at least three Democrats have expressed an interest in running as have five Republicans, but there are likely to be more.

To thicken the plot, failed Nevada Senate candidate and Tea Party "star" from 2010, Sharron Angle, is one of the Republicans determined to run. She has even suggested that the mainstream Republican establishment would have preferred to choose a candidate so they could avoid having her run on the general theory that the mainstream GOP is always trying to thwart the goals of the Tea Party movement. It could also be that Angle is crazy and that actually sane Republicans don't want Angle to do in this congressional race what she did in the Senate race - lose a sure thing. That could be it too.

That's where things stand. The election is on September 13th.

As an aside, I can't help but quote from a fundraising letter on Angle's website complaining that the Nevada Republican Party is trying to keep her out. It read in part:

The Democrats want this seat. The left-wing of the Republican Party wants it more. Instead of an open process, already they are behind closed doors, choosing one of their own to be the preferred candidate in the race.

Did any phrase jump out at you? Perhaps, "left-wing of the Republican Party." That really says something about the Tea Party. They actually think the Republican Party has a left wing. Imagine.

So the decision has been made by the State of Nevada and Angle can run along with what may be many others. It may actually turn out, as it sometimes does in wide-open races, that the one with the greatest name recognition does the best. It may not be that easy, however, as Nevada GOP chairman Mark Amodei and Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki are considering entering the race.

As for the Democrats, it is true they have never held this district, but Obama lost in it in 2008 by only 89 votes, so, with crazy splits and a crazy Republican in the mix, who knows.

What we do know is that we will now be blessed with yet another campaign full of fun pronouncements from Ms. Angle. I'm sure the Nevada Republican Party is thrilled.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Books by failed Republican candidates

By: R.K. Barry

I'm not sure any of us were waiting for this, but Christine O'Donnell, failed Delaware Republican Senate candidate, has a new book. Yes, it's called Trouble Maker: Let's Do What it Takes to Make America Great Again.

You may recall that Ms. O'Donnell took what was supposed to be an easy GOP pickup and single handedly turned it into a Democratic win. Not only does she have the clear gratitude of Christopher Coons, the successful Democratic, but also of so many of the rest of us, who wanted desperately to keep the Senate out of Republican control. Thank you Christine.

If her book can help other conservatives learn how to fail as she has so spectacularly done, I hope it is widely read.

My favourite line from the article promoting the book, which, by the way, appears on Sean Hannity's website, is that "[t]hough she didn't win the general election, O'Donnell did win the designation of 2010's Most Covered Candidate."

We all know the old adage about it not mattering what they say about you as long as they spell your name right. But I don't think that helps when they spell your name correctly in the same sentence that has you declaring that you are not a witch. Yes, Christine, you were the most covered candidate. How'd that work out for ya?

And, not to be outdone, I see that failed Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle is also writing a book. Adorably enough, this one is going to be called Right Angle.

Another Republican who took a "sure thing" GOP win and turned it into rat shit. More wisdom we can only hope the Tea Party and their ilk absorb in liberal doses.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost)

Out, out, damned spot

By Capt. Fogg

I saw this clip on The Impolitic this morning: Sharron Angle having a bit of a smugfest about how Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and Ben Franklin really wanted us to have the uninfringable right to own firearms, not to facilitate raising a militia, as was stated, or to put food on the table or keep the fox out of the henhouse, but to protect us against tyrannical despots demanding to provide us with affordable health care.



To be fair, I'd like to know the rest of the sentence starting "we need to take Harry Reid out. . ." Vote him out of his elected position, or just "take him out?"

Inquiring minds want to know, but batshit crazies with their hairy ears glued to the radio don't bother to ask. They already know. One has already spoken and as in Mao's famous statement about the voice of revolution -- from the muzzle of a gun. Indeed many self styled conservatives seem to have read intensively from the little red book.

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt for the nonce, but although Jefferson did indeed, how literally I don't know, suggest further revolutions, one would have a hard time convincing me the system he helped design wasn't intended to facilitate that process bloodlessly and with due process of law.

The bit about guns being needed to protect against "tyranny?" to allow the minority to have bloody revenge for the actions of elected representatives? Sorry, Sharron, this is beyond the boundaries of acceptable speech and perhaps even further into the territory of treason, if fomenting armed insurrection against an elected government be such.

It recalls Henry II crying "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" Not exactly a demand that someone kill Thomas à Becket, but someone soon did and Hank got to wash his hands of the matter. Whether it be the king of England, the Queen of Scotland or a Prefect of Roman Judea, some bloody bastard is always seeking such cleanliness, but that damned spot usually proves rather difficult to remove.

(Cross posted from Human voices)