Why would Jennings do this in Florida 13?

She calls for the House to seat Buchanan temporarily. It sounds odd to me, like she is sort of giving up. Maybe I don't see the whole picture.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/864

"There is new information unfolding in the District 13 dilemma.

Although she said she is not conceding, Christine Jennings is asking that Vern Buchanan take the 13th Congressional Seat on a temporary basis."

:shrug:

giving up!

I am not up on election rules.

I'll be surprised if Jennings isn't seated eventually.

I sure don't know about all of the inner workings, machinations and legal wrangling going on.

Obviously, there's a deal set up.

I'm inferring the following parameters:

1. Pelosi allows Buchanon to take the seat;

2. In return, the Republicans agree to a full airing of the Jennings' campaign's grievance on the floor of the House;

3. In addition to airing of the grievance, that debate will form the foundation of paper-trail legislation and/or a House rule about paper trails in judging House elections going forward;

4. Buchanon in FL 13 will be the #1 target for next cycle and the DHCC will support Jennings in both the primary (if any) and the general elections in '08 with the equivalent of a blank check.

There are various low- and high-political reasons why everyone (including Jennings but not neccessarily all of her grass-roots supporters) would sign off on this deal.

win in an unprejudiced process.
The results of the audit process so far make the case overwhelming that Jennings was the winner if the
votes were not manipulated by machine error or intentional manipulation.

www.flcv.com/d13panal.html

It appears likely that the manipulation was intentional. Why is this possibility not being seriously investigated?

FL-13: Jennings Won't Challenge Buchanan's Seating
By Justin Rood - December 29, 2006, 2:14 PM

(snip)

"Christine is not conceding," her deputy campaign manager Robert Kellar explained to me by phone. After consulting with constituents, her staff and Democratic leadership, she "decided it would be best for the district to allow (Buchanan) to be seated temporarily," until the election disputes are sorted out.

Kellar said Jennings had the option of filing an official challenge to seating Buchanan in the 110th Congress, but opted not to. "If a constituent has a problem with Social Security or something, they need someone to go to," Kellar explained. She has, however, "contested" the election with Congress, which is a different process.

Kellar said that staffers for the House Administration Committee have received Jennings' formal contest and are currently investigating the matter. More on that soon.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002253.php

Did Rush Holt give her this advice?

I don't care one way or the other, really. I am quickly learning not to care because change means making waves, and no one will do that.

If she were to hold up Buchannan from being seated but then lost her appeal, her chances of being elected in 2008 would be greatly diminished.

And since she effectively cannot "win her appeal" once her opponent is seated, what Jennings is doing is opening up her '08 campaign next week on the floor of the House.

Jennings doesn't lose any rights under the Federal Contested Elections Act if Buchanan is seated. The investigation is likely to go on for months. It's not unreasonable to seat Buchanan pending the outcome.

Now, as to how tough the House investigation will be, well, I don't know.

... it will be Constitutionally impossible to vacate the seat regardless of the Contested Elections Act.

It's not literally impossible .... I suppose 60 or so Republicans might decide that justice is more important than their partisan advantage, but I find that proposition dubious.

As I understand House rules, the House can remove the seated member by majority vote following the investigation. No?

"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."

Once a Member is seated, it takes two-thirds to unseat.

House rules, at least as of the 106th Congress, specify that seating a Member-elect does not prejudice a contest over final right to the seat. Facially, that could hardly be said if the only recourse were expulsion.

(EDIT: typo)

the rule you cited.

And the only recourse IS expulsion. Presuming Jennings won the contest in committee, the contest would simply go to the floor as a motion to expel the member that had been seated and seat the member who had won the contest. Otherwise, Jennings would wind up sitting on Buchanan's lap.

In the challenge over the Bloody Eighth in 1984, the House did NOT swear in a member for that seat while House performed the "judge of elections" function. The seat remained vacant until it was filled by a House Resolution on May 1.

The remove by majority vote question?

I just answered it. A sitting member of Congress can only be removed with the concurrence of two-thirds of the House involved.

You have presented no evidence that "expulsion" is the sole means of unseating a House member at the conclusion of an election contest. Actually, I have now presented evidence that it isn't (see #26). Nu?

It remains unclear whether Jenks was ever a full Member.

"Contested Congressional Elections in Recent Years"
Vincent M. Barnett, Jr.
Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 2 (Jun., 1939), pp. 187-215, at 187
link

I don't see that he was sworn in, according to his official bio:

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=J000090

Can one serve as a House member for over a year without ever being sworn?

I can't say that you have convinced me yet. I will stay tuned....

:^{)>

Isn't it fun?

Sorry for the delay, but I had yo go feed a pal's cat.

Also, I have access to a University library db, so I'll see if I can get get the remainder of the article you posted and/or find another case on point.

Jan Schnieder...just look at her back ground and what she did in the 2004 election..


yeah ..i trust the dlc...not

She doesn't want the stigma of having fought too much.

That is just plain sad.

She is likely very aware just how far Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Caucus will go on this, and is adjusting her strategy accordingly.

There are numerous positives that can emerge from this no matter how "hard" she fights.

For example, as I mentioned above, real paper-trail legislation or House rules should come out of this.

Also, I don't know how old you are, but I remember the "Bloody Eighth" dispute after the 1984 elections and that consumed the House for months. The month of January in Congress might be critical to defining American politics for the next decade. Pelosi simply can't allow that critical period to be consumed by a credentials battle.

Releasing a seat that we might concievably control is a price we have to pay to control the Congressional agenda and the news narrative and to prevent as much as possible further damage to the country from the Bush Administration.

Politics is the art of the possible.

if she loses her appeal, and Buchanan is seated, I don't think any dem has much of a chance in 2008. The district is very republican (Katherine Harris's district, remember), then with the advantage of incumbency Buchanan would be very tough to beat.

I think all of her strategy is aimed at the 2006 election, which after all she won.

--she would challenge the election rather than merely contesting it.

--one of the Dems raises a point of order before the declared winner is sworn in, then that point of order is either upheld or not by MAJORITY vote, and the FL 13 seat is held vacant until the House rules on the election if the point of order is upheld.

If she contests the election, the declared winner is sworn in but the contest continues in the appropriate committee (House Administration, I think, but possibly Rules). However, regardless of how the contest is resolved, it would take TWO-THIRDS vote to remove the person holding the seat.

So. The difference is between the MAJORITY it would take to mount a challenge versus the TWO-THIRDS it would take to win a contest.

I would like to see links for those rules, however...

And as you may tell from my other replies, I think it's a reasonable thing that Jennings concedes, although I also understand the face-saving going on with this "temporary" claim.