September 19, 2008
BARBOUR CAVES, FIXES BALLOT.... There's a surprisingly competitive Senate race in Mississippi this year, with appointed Sen. Roger Wicker (R) facing a credible challenge from former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove (D). Recent polling suggests Wicker is in the lead, but in the low to mid single-digit range.
Mississippi's Republican governor, former RNC chairman Haley Barbour, came up with an idea to help give Wicker an edge -- he decided to move the Senate race to the bottom of the state ballot, below state and local races, where he'd hoped voters might overlook it. Mississippi election law makes it clear that federal elections must go at the top of ballots, but Barbour and his Republican secretary of state, Delbert Hosemann, decided to pursue this anyway, arguing that the Wicker-Musgrove race is a special election to fill the remainder of Trent Lott's term.
The state attorney general's office explained that this is illegal, but Barbour didn't care. Yesterday, the state Supreme Court also ruled that Barbour's ballot violated the law, and soon after Barbour agreed to reverse course.
Republican Gov. Haley Barbour agreed Thursday to move a special election for Trent Lott's old Senate seat to near the top of the November ballot, ending a dispute that had threatened to delay the start of absentee voting. [...]
A majority of Supreme Court justices ruled Thursday that a 2000 state law requires all federal races to be near the top of the ballot.
I wonder what would happen if Republicans spent half the energy on governing and creating an effective policy agenda as they did on disenfranchisement and ballot games.
—Steve Benen 1:45 PM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (19)
They'd screw us over more competently, that's what. Be careful what you wish for...
Posted by: Steve LaBonne on September 19, 2008 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK
"Delbert Hosemann"
Posted by: dana on September 19, 2008 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK
"The state attorney general's office explained that this is illegal, but Barbour didn't care."
illegal....smillegal. the repukes don't care about illegal. it's all about whether it's right for the party!
orange
Posted by: just bill on September 19, 2008 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK
I wonder what would happen if Republicans spent half the energy on governing and creating an effective policy agenda as they did disenfranchisement and ballot games.
1) That would subvert the whole "government is bad" meme.
2) Most of them don't know how.
Posted by: josef on September 19, 2008 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK
Amen.
Look what's happening in WI with current Repub. JB Van Hollen's attempts to purge the voting rolls--wants to file suit 6 weeks before election.
See http://badgerherald.com/news/2008/09/19/van_hollen_could_be_.php
He's obviously in cahoots with Republican political hacks. Makes me believe there really is a vast right-wing conspiracy...
Posted by: Jeff from WI on September 19, 2008 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK
Laws are for the "little people." It just goes to prove the old adage - repubs know how to win election but they don't know how to govern.
Posted by: Lori on September 19, 2008 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK
I'm here in MS - let me tell you this was twenty different kinds of stupid.
If anyone is interested in the various flavors of stupidity this thing dredged up, read the reader comments on the story here in the local press: http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200880918052
Posted by: salparadise on September 19, 2008 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK
Near? Sounds like there's wiggle room. Hell, 6 inches is "near" isn't it? Guy stands 6 inches away from you he's pretty damned near to you. Where would that put it on the ballot?
Posted by: steve duncan on September 19, 2008 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK
"I wonder what would happen if Republicans spent half the energy on governing and creating an effective policy agenda as they did disenfranchisement and ballot games."
They'd all get booted out of office once voters saw what they really wanted to do. Incompetence and corruption can be ignored by the faithful, but once people saw the impact of their rhetoric, the Republican Party would die. Even as it is, they're terribly unpopular for even trying to fulfill their agenda.
Conservativism dies a little each time they put the rubber to the road. Were they to really go through with it, even Reagan's ghost couldn't resurrect it. And their leaders know that better than anyone.
Posted by: Doctor Biobrain on September 19, 2008 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK
Funny thing about those repukes, They claim that govurmnt is bad, bad, bad....but they are wiling to lie, cheat, steal, ad nauseum to become the guvment that they so despise. Such self-hatred is pathological. No wonder when they are in charge the rest of us suffer so (projection and sublimation anyone?). How often do the repukes actually make govment smaller, more efficient, transparent, and fiscally responsible? They run as conservatives on a platform totally divorced from reality, another sign of pathology. So that's it then, repukes are, generally, mentally ill. That explains a lot.
Posted by: oppressmenot on September 19, 2008 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK
It would be a lot more honest of them to simply say here's what we stand for but if they did that they'd never get elected. So, by nature they are constantly scheming to cover up their real intentions. It probably never crossed their minds that in the long run people, I mean even stupid people, would figure it out for themselves. But hey, we still have November coming up so I might be entirely wrong on this one.
Posted by: Paul on September 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK
This requires more attention- according to Kos- the S.Ct. of MISS essentially suggested that the ballot ought to be changed but that they did not have any authority to enforce the law enacted by the legislature. Think about it. Is this Southern jurisprudence? Where the executive is essentailly a dictator, who, at his or her own volition, may decide to comply or not to comply with the wishes of the legilature or the courts? Is this how Huey Long become so powerful in LA? Is the Deep South in the business of electing mini-dictators? Where are the Feds in all of this? Let me repeat: the Court did not order Barbour to change the ballot. He probably felt it was the better political course at this time, but in other situations?
Posted by: Raoul on September 19, 2008 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK
"Mr. Davis previously was head of the Homeownership Alliance, a coalition of banks and housing industry interests led by Fannie and Freddie to stave off regulations."
"while his campaign manager, Rick Davis, lobbied to help Fannie and Freddie steer clear of additional federal regulations (which, obviously, would have been pretty helpful in retrospect)."
McSHAME has no SHAME! He's saying that Obama
didn't back his bill on F&F, and yet, his
campaign manager was ALSO on the other side of McSHAME.
This is pot calling kettle black, except that each side of the equation is the SAME POT!
Posted by: barkleyg on September 19, 2008 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK
The majority of the SC but not unanimously?
Why do I feel that there are corrupt judges on that SC? Yeah, more GOP judges "legislating from the bench."
How reptilianly republican.
Posted by: MsJoanne on September 19, 2008 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK
Happy day, Barbour "decided" to follow the law on the ballot--must be he's convinced they can Diebold the election so it won't matter. Makes me proud of my country to know that governors/presidents/candidates can decide whether or not it's convenient to follow the law or obey a subpoena.
Posted by: Frak on September 19, 2008 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK
I wonder what would happen if Republicans spent half the energy on governing and creating an effective policy agenda as they did on disenfranchisement and ballot games.
Modern GOP theory, clearly, sees gaining power as not as a means to an end, but as the end in and of itself.
Mayberry Machiavellis, anyone?
-Z
Posted by: Zorro on September 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK
As a Mississippian, let me say how shocked and surprised I am by Haley "Boss Hogg" Barbour backing down on this. The reason the Court decision was not unanimous was not that conservatives voted to support Barbour's position but that the liberal justices didn't think the opinion went far enough. The actual holding of the opinion was that Barbour was required by law to put the senatorial race at the top of the ballot but that the Mississippi Judiciary had no power to order him to do so prior to the election and could only rule on the legality of the decision after the vote. I fully expected Barbour to seize on this language, keep the ballot as it was, and let the Democrats sue him after it was too late to do any good.
Posted by: Alan on September 19, 2008 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK
"...I wonder what would happen...".
You mean actually have a political party that was interested in governing?
Silly Steve, governing is for kids!
Posted by: Doug on September 19, 2008 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK
Ticket placement, schmicket placement. They got some real sh!t for yo a$$ come election day!
Posted by: TBone on September 20, 2008 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINK