TPMDC

Massachusetts Law: Certificate Of Election Can't Come For At Least Ten Days (And Probably More)

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

MA Senate Candidates AG Martha Coakley (D) and State Sen. Scott Brown (R)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

With the Senate Democrats indicating that they will wait for the state of Massachusetts to follow its own procedural guidelines for certifying a winner in the Massachusetts special Senate election, the next question should be asked: What are the state's guidelines and procedures?

We asked Michelle Tassinari, the legal counsel for the state Elections Division, and she sent us over a list of the relevant statutes.

First of all, no certificate of election can be issued until at least ten days following a special election, and in real terms it would probably be at least 15 days. State law can allow for a certificate seven days after a special election -- but that law is trumped by the federal laws governing overseas and military ballots, which are triggered because this is an election for federal office, and which create a longer window in this election.

The delay between election day and certification of the winner is provided for by state law in order for local election officials -- there are 351 local election offices in the state -- to certify their totals, and to count overseas absentee ballots that have not arrived until after election day. The deadline for absentee ballots sent from overseas to reach their local election offices is 5 p.m. on January 29.

Tassinari also explained to us that January 29 is not necessarily the endpoint. Ballots must arrive by 5 p.m. on that day, and the local election officials cannot have their meeting to count them until after 5 p.m. that day. The local election officials then have up to five more days to resolve any provisional ballots before they certify their local election results, which must be done by February 3rd.

After the results are received from the local election officials, the Secretary of State will present the total results to the governor and the Governor's Council for certification. Only after the results are certified by the governor and the Governor's Council can a certificate of election be issued. (The governor and the council schedule their own meetings, which usually take place on Wednesdays.)

So what does this all mean? Looking over these statutes, it seems clear that unless the result is very, very close (think Al Franken and Norm Coleman in Minnesota, or Scott Murphy and Jim Tedisco in NY-20), we should probably know on election night who has been elected when the vast majority of votes are counted. But even then, state law is clear that a certificate of election cannot be issued until at least 15 days later.

And if Senate Democrats insist on a completed certificate -- just as the Senate Dems did in their unsuccessful attempts to keep out Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL), and Senate Republicans did in their successful blocking of Al Franken during the Minnesota litigation -- that would keep the winner out for at least 15 days.

Comments (37) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

January 18, 2010 3:33 PM   

If is the operative word.

Is Paul Kirk still the senator until certification?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 3:57 PM   

If the CNN "Political Ticker" story from last night is to be believed, this will have no impact whatsoever on a Plan B for health-care reform. Discussing a possible Democratic fast-tracking of a conference bill before Brown is seated, CNN noted fear of "a huge public outcry" (WTF?) and said that several Democratic senators who voted "yes" on the bill have told the White House they would now vote against it under any kind of fast-tracking circumstances.

Reading stories like that (if true) induce all sorts of rage and despair in me over how rightwing-rigged our whole system and political conversation has become. The Republicans sure had no problem fast-tracking Clinton's impeachment after losing seats in the '98 midterms. On our side, we're now talking about extending health-care insurance to at least 30 million Americans... and a handful of wussy DINOs are telling us they won't support it, for fear of "a huge public outcry."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 4:08 PM    in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy

On our side, we're now talking about extending health-care insurance to at least 30 million Americans... and a handful of wussy DINOs are telling us they won't support it, for fear of "a huge public outcry."

I don't know why you're calling them DINOs.

It suggests that Democratic capitulation to Republican demands is the exception, when history has shown it's the rule.

If Brown wins, I expect the Republicans and the media to demand an end to health care reform...and, I expect them to get it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 4:00 PM   

Eric, there's one error in your excellent blog post, which is where you incorrectly state at the end that a certificate of election letting Brown be seated cannot be issued "at least 15 days" after the election. Re-read your own post further above, and, corroborating what I've read elsewhere, you correctly state that after the 10 days for receiving absentee ballots the locals have "up to 5 days" to present their final tallies.

The locals could finish up within a day, and the certification possibly could be issued quickly thereafter, meaning it all could be done as fast as 11 days. That likely is not the most realistic scenario, but it's legally and theoretically possible.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 4:08 PM   

As was mentioned above the Senate wouldn't do that. Which is why the White House will have to lean on the House Reps to vote on the Senate bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 4:08 PM   

How long does it take for a Bill to get voted on in the Senate? As we found out before Christmas, there are a lot of set timelines - 3 days, 30 hours, etc. after it is introduced.

Of course, there is also getting the CBO score but they could both be running at the same time - hopefully.

Hmmmm

What would be easier for the Senate - trying to rush it through before he would be seated or House passes current Senate Bill then changes agreed to are passed by Reconcilliation? Perhaps even better changes passed through Reconcilliation?

Uggghh - the name Kent Conrad just popped into my head.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

user-pic

January 18, 2010 4:13 PM    in reply to Kristi

As we found out before Christmas, there are a lot of set timelines - 3 days, 30 hours, etc. after it is introduced.

The set timeline is 24 hours per vote, or less if the minority chooses not to obstruct. The reason it was 3 days for the vote before Christmas was that the Christmas vote was actually 3 separate votes, each with its own cloture call.

The Senate is unlikely to vote on anything without getting a CBO score first.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 4:09 PM   

This one could easily be close enough to trigger a recount. I assume the election cannot be certified until after that's completed. And what about a contest? Does MA law have any provisions similar to MN? Does the Governor and SoS have any discretion in this regard?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 4:10 PM   

I'm with you, Shoeless. 'Outcry' my ass. And even if ther was one, it would fade outside the DC media circles in a a week. But if we fail to get this bill passed, the fallout will be fatal in November. But really, I hold no hope that the Democrats will show any nerve on this. God truly is a Republican, is all I can figure, if an utter zero like Scott Brown can win this seat, now, after 60 years of health care attempts and a solid year of dithering, fake bipartisanship, tea parties, town meeting madness and all the rest.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 4:28 PM    in reply to Weeferdog

Paul Krugman from this morning:

And meanwhile, Democrats have to do whatever it takes to enact a health care bill. Passing such a bill won’t be their political salvation — but not passing a bill would surely be their political doom.

No one will be immune.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 10:59 AM    in reply to Weeferdog

if an utter zero like Scott Brown can win this seat, now

Sen.-elect Scott Brown served 3 terms in the Mass. House. He won his State Senate seat in a special election against a Democrat and then won 3 elections (two contested) to keep it - as a Republican in Massachusetts, mind you. That's a total of almost 12 years in the Massachusetts legislature beating out the dominant party to get and keep his seat. He has distinguished himself while there in various aspects of legislative work, especially with regards to veterans. He's also a Lt. Colonel in the reserves after having intially enlisted.

Now-Pres. Barak Obama served 3 terms in the Illinois Senate. He won his first seat after using petition challenges to knock his opponents off the primary ballot and faced no opposition in any of his general elections. During his election to the U.S. Senate he faced little primary opposition. In the general election his first opponent was exposed mid-election as having been involved in a sex scandal that led to his divorce from Jeri Ryan ("7 of 9" in "Star Trek TNG") and had to resign. His second opponent, who obviously came into the election quite late, was Alan Keyes, a nutbag from Maryland, who got the spot because the Illinois GOP at that point had completely imploded - they didn't even have a chairperson for 30 days in the middle of the campaign because the incumbent was forced to resign after it was found that he was using State employees on State time to run party business. While in the Illinois Senate he set an all time record for the entire State Legislature for the number of times he voted "Present".

If Scott Brown was a zero when he won his Senate seat, Barak Obama was a negative number.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 4:40 PM   

The Senate has already passed a health care bill. The House Democrats should pass it and claim victory. If they had done that right away, we wouldn't be having this problem now. There was never any way a more progressive bill would have got past the Senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 4:41 PM   

They do NOT need the Senate to pass health care reform. They just need the House to pass health care reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

user-pic

January 18, 2010 4:59 PM    in reply to Maritza

Yeah, but if the House just passes the Senate bill that will be a much worse bill than the "compromise" version they're trying to push through now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 4:46 PM   

I really don't care what this poll or that say...i't will come down to wether or not the GEMs carrying the poll results have malware within them. Did we forget all the missteps and GEMs that went missing only to re-appear later.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 4:58 PM   

Academic

No way the Senate's gonna try to fast track health care

RU kidding?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 5:00 PM   

I've been so bothered by the worsening Coakely news- I have been trying to keep away from any political news, just to avoid depression. Every day, since past few weeks,reading on the MA-Senate race has been like watching Titanic on a slow but sure collision course track with the giant iceberg.

I hear, Martha went the Hillary '08 way- her campaign projecting her as a inevitable winner, fully ignoring Scott Brown until the bagger crowd gathered storm and showered torrential rainfall from the left field. Now she's in running for cover. How incompetent can one be to find yourself loosing Ted Kennedy's seat from MA to the bagger movement? and How Ironical it is that Ted Kennedy's seat may determine the fate of HC?

If Dems cannot win in MA, I just cannot imagine the slaughter we will witness in the midterms.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 5:05 PM   

If he wins, God forbid, and if it takes 10-15 days before his election is certified then the Senate better Goddamn well pass the bill. Considering how long the Repugnuts delayed seating Al Franken, doing this would be ethical, it would be legitimate and the Democrats better start playing the game the way the other side plays it and stop being defensive wimps. The whiners and screamers are going to cry foul no matter what happens. In the long run, Democrats will do better passing health care reform by any means necessary than letting it fail or passing an inadequate bill to appease the crazies and the villagers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 5:06 PM   

If Brown wins, the health care bill won't go back to the Senate. The House will pass it and then try to amend it later with 52 votes in the Senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 5:48 PM   

If Brownie wins, someone will have a very difficult decision to make. But it won't be Obama, Reid, or Pelosi. It will be the bosses of Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, and the other health insurance companies. And the decision is this: do we scratch this HC bill now, after we have already poured $500 mil? And the answer is probably no because the pending HC bill is not only a sweetheart deal for the health insurance companies, but it also mandates their existence. In practical terms, this decision will mean that at least one GOP senator will vote FOR the HC bil when it goes back to the Senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 6:03 PM   

WHEN Brown wins. Nate just called it for Brown:

"The FiveThirtyEight Senate Forecasting Model, which correctly predicted the outcome of all 35 Senate races in 2008, now regards Republican Scott Brown as a 74 percent favorite to win the Senate seat in Massachusetts on the basis of new polling from ARG, Research 2000 and InsiderAdvantage which show worsening numbers for Brown's opponent, Martha Coakley. We have traditionally categorized races in which one side has between a 60 and 80 percent chance of winning as "leaning" toward that candidate, and so that is how we categorize this race now: Lean GOP."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 6:32 PM   

Raise your hand if you think Lieberman or Nelson would let anything happen in those 11-15 days anyway? Joe MUST be itching for a way to weasel out of his prior vote and senator-elect Brown gives him enough bullshit reasoning to threaten to join a GOP filibuster of even a barely-modified compromise bill, nevermind one with, you know, actual compromises in it. "I cannot in good faith rush this huge bill through just to bypass the will of Massachusetts' voters, whose chosen representative should be allowed to vote blah blah blah..." <puke>

If Brown wins, we have to use Plan B and hope some things can be fixed via reconciliation. Even with Coakley I fear any type of vote in the Senate. Just not sure that 60 will hold together...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 6:54 PM    in reply to Boidster

I agree. Lieberman will go on about how Brown needs to be seated, blah blah blah.

At the end of the day, I blame the Democrats in the Senate and the House. Useless lot.

And unfortunately, this also showcases Obama's political inexperience. He came with all the right ideas, he extended olive branches galore to the Republicans, and never realized that the rules in Washington weren't going to change for him.

Reid is a useless, uninspiring Senate leader who never had a pair.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 7:04 PM   

Of course when Niki Tsongas (D) won a special election for Congress in 2007, somehow she was sworn in within 48 hours

http://redmassgroup.com/diary/6471/niki-tsongas-and-a-partisan-doublestandard

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 7:17 PM    in reply to Campesino

The House has different rules.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 11:02 AM    in reply to Lord Mike

When Ted Kennedy won his special election to take over his brother's seat in 1962 he was seated the NEXT DAY.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 7:25 PM   

Here's what no one seems to understand. Massachusetts law states that the interim senator remains senator, "until election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy."

Therefore and regardless of who is elected tomorrow, on Wednesday Kirk is toast -- done -- over with.

Per the law Brown meets the age, citizenship, and residency requirements in the Constitution to qualify for the Senate. "Qualification" does not require state "certification." Qualification is defined as citizenship, age, and residency -- all of which Brown has sustained and qualifies.

"59" sounds so much better to me than "60," but then I'm not a fan of tyrannies or dictatorial goons. The left-wingnuts have had a year to do as much damage as they can. It's over starting tomorrow.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 9:47 PM   

not quite right. your quote: "until election and qualification of the person duly elected..."

nobody is "duly elected" until the election results have been certified. we may know tomorrow night who will be the victor, but the person is not officially the victor until the certification.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 10:09 PM   

Check the case law ... expand your mind and learn something.

Being "duly elected" means that it was as expected to happen or as it did happen or it was done, in this case the ballots cast by the people, not the "certification" of the ballot count. Certification is not the same as being duly elected. Certification does not execute or elect anyone. Certification is a mere formal recognition of what has occurred, that being the election by the people. The election is dependent upon voters and the will of the same, not the dithering of a Secretary of State. Nor, is the election dependent upon what rules a tyrannical body of the past or the Democratic body of today may do in changing rules to fit their cause and ignore the will of the people. If you recall, we went through the consequences of that more than 200 years ago.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 11:23 PM   

This has become a battle of parties and not a battle for or against something that will benefit Americans. No one truely knows what is in the current plan or really has any idea at all what will be in the final plan if it indeed it goes that far. Left and right are both fighting for or against the plan because it seems that is the political thing to do instead of whether or not it will help or hurt Americans. No true dependable argument can be made since no one knows what is in it. I am sick of the deals being cut to get this pushed through although I know this is routinely done by both parties. The only summary to all this is no matter whose fault, congress and the country is divided like no time since the cival war. I'm afraid this will be the legacy left by the health care bill and the Obama era and the country will be the worse for it. Lets start caring about what is best for the country instead of which side is winning. There is supposed to only be one side, America's. I am both disgusted and saddened by the current state of our congress and elected officials.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 19, 2010 1:09 AM   

Of course, Uncle Ted was seated just 2 days after his election back in 1960 and just last year Niki Tsongas took her oath of office just as quickly after winning her special election for the U.S. House.

After having changed the state law to appoint Kirk (after changing it to shaft Romney), dragging feet on a Brown swearing in WILL cause a revolt up here.

I suspect voters will be so mad that not a single Dem politician will be safe and it will spread nationally. You can't hide this stuff.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 19, 2010 8:06 AM    in reply to truth > spin

This is the "too cute by half" part of local Democratic games that is rich with irony. If Beacon Hill had done nothing back when Kerry was running in 2004 (and Romney was governor), Deval Patrick would have been able to appoint a Senator whose term would have run through 2012 (if I recall the old law correctly). I'm a Democrat and voting for Coakley, but these shenanigans backfired.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 19, 2010 8:39 AM   

If there was any real justice in the world - you know, "cosmic" justice - everyone who voted for Scott Brown would have to spend the rest of his or her days filling out insurance forms, trying unsuccessfully to figure out their co-pays and deductibles, endlessly waiting on hold to speak to someone in Bangladesh with their latest question about coverage, and losing appeal after appeal of their insurance company's decision not to pay for a medical procedure that their doctor recommended.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 19, 2010 12:49 PM   

Again, no one knows how this (health care)would work so don't try to tell us that the "government" plan isn't going to have the same problems. I'll be the first to say I don't know what is in the bill but those of you arguing for it like it is the cure all and we have to pass it, are the same ones that vote strictly party lines. As in my previous post, America needs representatives and apparently citizens that care about the country and not which party wins. Lets evaluate the health care bill on its merits. Oh wait, we can't because we haven't seen it. Lets tune into CSPAN as promised and see what is in it ourselves. Oh wait, we can't do that either can we. All we hear is what each party wants us to hear and that after it is all twisted around and taken out of context. I'll stick with my original thought, if I have to endorse a health care bill sight unseen then I will endorse it (health care bill) just as soon as those drafting it (politicians) get on board and say they will drop their government provided insurance for the new proposed plan. (That would be justice). The fact they are not willing to should tell you something.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 20, 2010 4:03 PM   

Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 25, 2010 3:51 PM   

I find it fascinating that people in Massachusetts-all across the nation-actually are accepting Scott Brown's victory in the Baystate!

Scott Brown does represent the same political party that stole two PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS in a row-and positively played with the election process in both FLORIDA and OHIO-doesn't he?

It's not like they haven't done it before-is it?

And with no apology-either.

They positively thumbed their noses and seated George Bush twice in a row-swore him in-the whole nine yards despite incredible controversy.


It would hardly be new conduct on the part of the GOP.

Yet everybody accepts Brown's victory in Massachusetts by claiming Coakley wasn't much of a candidate!


Coakley wasn't very exciting (granted)so a conservative victory wouldn't really have surprised anyone-and no one would've questioned it-either.

Talk about your golden opportunity-eh?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 12, 2010 2:12 PM   

I've been so bothered by the worsening Coakely news- I have been trying to keep away from any political news, just to avoid depression. Every day, since past few weeks,reading on the MA-Senate race has been like watching Titanic on a slow but sure collision course track with the giant iceberg.

I hear, Martha went the Hillary '08 way- her campaign projecting her as a inevitable winner, fully ignoring Scott Brown until the bagger crowd gathered storm and showered torrential rainfall from the left field. Now she's in running for cover. How incompetent can one be to find yourself loosing Ted Kennedy's seat from MA to the bagger movement? and How Ironical it is that Ted Kennedy's seat may determine the fate of HC?

m65 kamagra

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on