Setting a date for a special Senate election

It's going to be a real special, and it's going to favor the guy who gets to pick when -- the governor. Harvey Kronberg's got the goods:

The Lege in recent years has chipped away at the number of uniform election dates to the point where only two now exist – in May and in November. That trend could end up playing a factor in when the special election to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison’s Senate seat might occur.

The next two uniform election dates are Nov. 3 and May 8. To meet the earlier deadline, Hutchison would have to resign her seat and Gov. Rick Perry would have to issue an election proclamation by Sept. 28.

Several factors would argue against Hutchison resigning so soon. The first is that her “no” vote is needed by Republicans in Washington on health care and cap and trade legislation. The other consideration is more local. Republicans don’t want a Senate special election to fall on the November election date because it coincides with contested municipal elections in Houston. That would give Houston Mayor Bill White a boost, possibly enough to lift him into a runoff.

It would also seem that May is out as an option as well, if just for Perry to avoid the politics of a multi-candidate Senate election from spilling into his primary war with Hutchison.

Those factors would seem to argue for a later resignation, perhaps in October, and an emergency special election. Perry has almost carte blanche when setting an election date if he deems an emergency justifies holding the election on a non-uniform date.

Hutchison has indicated she will leave in the fall, which to me would preclude both November '09 and certainly May '10. But Harvey suggests ...

Some thinking has it that Perry would call the special election between Thanksgiving and Christmas with a runoff in early January. An early special election would play to the advantage of the best funded candidate -- presumably Lt. Governor David Dewhurst. Plus, conventional wisdom has always held that Republicans enjoy an inherent advantage in turning their voters out in special elections, even if they are not in holiday seasons.

I would have thought January for a February runoff personally, but an election during the holiday season is certainly no oddity. In SD-17's special, held on the traditional November election day last year, the runoff was on December 16. And getting this out of the way by January lets everyone focus on the March party primaries.

Some interesting scuttlebutt regarding other statewide candidates is beginning to bubble up, and our blogger's alliance has a conference call with Hank Gilbert coming Saturday morning. So a regular posting schedule around here is forthcoming.

The thirteen (or so) holdouts on the public option

TPM:

Two crucial questions hang over the Senate. Will it pass Democrat-only health care reforms? And can a public option survive the whims of the so-called budget reconciliation process? If the answer to both questions is yes, then the public option could survive in the stasis-oriented upper chamber. But if the answer to the second question is "no," then the Democrats will a lot of whipping to do.

Go read the article. Here's how I think it goes (today):

The ayes will ultimately include Warner of VA, Tester of MN, Pryor of AR, and Begich of AK for a total of 51. Add Nelson of FL as a likely yes.

The nays will be Landrieu of LA, Lieberman of CT, Bayh of IN, Lincoln of AR, Nelson of NE, and most all of the rest of those assholes, including Baucus and Conrad.

Even with 99 senators the headcount necessary to suspend debate, i.e. end a Republican filibuster, remains 60. Only if the number of Senators "duly chosen and sworn" becomes 98 would the three-fifths majority needed be reduced to 59.

So the real question is whether some of the nays will vote for cloture. This is why the eventual Massachusetts appointee, and how long it takes to get that person 'chosen' and sworn, is important also. And whether there will be public outcry sufficient to force one or two members of the GOP to relent on their blockage of healthcare reform.

In short, the final battle remains in the hands of the people.

Update: Since I prepared most of this post on Wednesday, Chris Bowers of Open Left today has revised his whip count and observes that no Democratic senator has specifically stated opposition to the public option. Since Lieberman isn't a Democrat -- that is not hyperbole; he is both technically and obviously an independent -- he doesn't count. Besides Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, the most confirmed fence-sitters are those Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee: Max Baucus, Tom Carper, Kent Conrad, Bill Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Ron Wyden. Because, as Bowers notes ...

(T)hose Senators are still in a position to pass a bill out of that committee without a public option, while Senators not on the Finance Committee are not. If you are in a position to avoid a vote on the public option ever happening, then simply saying you will not vote against a public option isn't good enough(.)

Toons honoring Teddy