Swing State Project

« NJ-Sen: Kean Leads, but Huge Undecideds | Main | CT-Sen: Is Lieberman Beatable? »

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

CT-Sen: Lieberman Needs to Brush Up on Connecticut Election Law

Posted by DavidNYC

In a recent interview with a local CT newspaper, the Waterbury Republican-American, Joe Lieberman related the following:

He then added, in response to a question, that if he were to lose a primary he would still seek re-election.

"I intend to be on the ballot in November," he declared.

There's only one problem here. Dear Joseph needs to study up on Title 9 of the Connecticut Code, specifically § 9-453i:

Submission to town clerk or Secretary of the State.

(a) Each page of a nominating petition proposing a candidate for an office to be filled at a regular election shall be submitted to the appropriate town clerk or to the Secretary of the State not later than four o'clock p.m. on the ninetieth day preceding the day of the regular election.

This means that independent candidates have to submit petitions by August 9th, 2006. It just so happens that the Connecticut primary is on August 8th. In other words, if Joe loses the primary, in order to run as an independent in the general, he'd have to file petitions the very next day.

This is all but a literal impossibility. Joe would have to collect petitions while still running in the Dem primary. Can you imagine such a spectacle? It would be beyond unheard of for a sitting senator to do such a thing. The only real way Lieberman could run as an indie would be if he abandoned the Democratic Party (save your jokes) well in advance of the primary. Otherwise, he's just talking smack. If he loses the primary, he's done, finished, tostada del dia.

Posted at 04:44 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Connecticut | Technorati

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/mt/mt-track-ssp.cgi/2087

Comments

Nice work,

But Lieberman running as an indie never scared anyone anyway.CT . voters are either Redsox or Yankee fans and won't tolerate someone losing a primary and then switching parties.

If Joe pulled out of the Democratic Party Today he would have a better chance of holding his seat than he does staying in but he can't.If W doesn't open a magic door for Poor Joe real soon he's going down hard and may have to move to New Hampshire "full Time" ( just like primary season)for a second time.

Posted by: ctkeith at January 17, 2006 09:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

If I've said it once I've said it a million times; if we attacked Republicans as much as we do democrats, we'd have a majority in the house and senate right now.

Posted by: jkfp2004 at January 17, 2006 11:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

the problem of course with the formulation that this is about attacking democrats is that, of course, joe spends most of his time attacking democrats so maybe you need to send that message over to joe

Posted by: bruhrabbit at January 18, 2006 12:13 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

How's this for a scenario:

At the nominating convention (March?), Lamont, based on strong support from the DTCs, gets named as the endorsed candidate in the primary.

Joe leaves his name in the primary, but, announcing that the Democratic party has left him, starts collecting signatures for an indy run.

David NYC - Saw you your post on Amazin' Avenue the other day. Being another law student progressive, its nice to see we share one more interest.

Posted by: thekickingdonkey at January 18, 2006 08:03 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The nominating convention is in May. I'm not sure that I agree with CT Keith that Lieberman's independent run was not a threat. I took it to be a serious one, and am thrilled that you found this tidbit. I think it's really important.

Posted by: MVD at January 18, 2006 10:40 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

the convention is in May but due to difficulty securing a venue because of college graduations an exact date hasn't been confirmed yet.

MVD,

For Joe to play the only Trump card he had in his hand(an indie run) so early shows how desperate he is.Go back and look at his poll #s during the summer of 03 when his visibility was highest because of his run for the presidential nomination.He bottomed at 42% favorable in his home state when he was on the tube and the leading newspaper story here.

The more sunshine thats spread on Lieberman the lower his approval #s go.Having a mile wide but 1/32" puddle of support is a recipe for disaster not victory.

Posted by: ctkeith at January 18, 2006 10:58 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I spend about 100 to 1,000 times more of my energy attacking Republicans than fellow Democrats. I think my posts are pretty indicative of that.

Posted by: DavidNYC at January 18, 2006 01:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

People seem to be interpreting Lieberman's statements through their hatred of him, and are grasping for any ammunition here. He's treating Lamont as a nothing candidate--he intends to be on the ballot in November because he doesn't intend to lose the primary, not because he's going to run as an independent. It's the first rule of politics--project inevitibility. What politician is going to say, in response to "What if you lose?", "Well, geez, I guess I'll just go home and lick my wounds." The correct response to that question is, "I'm not going to lose," which is what Lieberman's saying here.

Posted by: sucopsucoh at January 18, 2006 02:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Sucop: I thought about your possible interpretation, too. However, that's not how the Republican-American frames things. It's possible they misunderstood - that Lieberman was "projecting inevitablity," and the reporter misread him.

But the reporter characterized it as "if he were to lose a primary he would still seek re-election." That's what I'm responding to.

Posted by: DavidNYC at January 18, 2006 04:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The problem is that there's no context, other than the question. I don't like Lieberman's position on Iraq, and I wish he'd respect the 11th Commandment more frequently, but if that was the end all be all of the exchange--
"What will you do if you lose the primary?"
"I intend to be on the ballot in September."
--that's not enough to extrapolate that he's going to run as an independent or third party candidate if he loses. Lieberman's not a student council member from Eastern Nowhere, Anystate. He's playing at the highest level of American politics, and he's not going to concede that he can be beaten. Unless the reporter followed up, "Does that mean you'll run as an independent?" (and I doubt he did, since a "Yes" from Lieberman would be an intensely juicy quote), there's no reason other than a need to find wrong with Lieberman to interpret his statements that way. One way or another, it's shoddy reporting, and a significant ado has been made of this shoddy reporting.

Posted by: sucopsucoh at January 18, 2006 08:27 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment