Left In Lowell

The High Cost of Special Elections

21 Responses to “The High Cost of Special Elections”

1. mc - Groton Says:
   November 23rd, 2007 at 6:54 am

   Great suggestion!!

2. K-R-S Says:
   November 23rd, 2007 at 8:14 am

   Mimi, I think that is a great suggestion! Didn’t Nangle have a couple of fundraisers over the past year?

3. Anonymous Says:
   November 23rd, 2007 at 6:30 pm

   Why not just let the person who finished 2nd fill the seat… like the City Council does.

4. Prince Charming Says:
   November 23rd, 2007 at 7:43 pm

   Hmmmm….privately funded elections??

5. iminthe middle Says:
   November 23rd, 2007 at 9:01 pm

   Reminder - The City Council race is non-partisan. The second place finisher in a Rep/Senate/Congressional race would be from another other party. Mmmmm.

6. Pablo Says:
   November 23rd, 2007 at 11:11 pm

   A simplistic talk-radio solution if ever I heard one.

   It’s unconstitutional to require a financial penalty for quitting a job - try reading the 13th Amendment.

   Amendment XIII
   Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

   What has happened to our democracy? The problem is not with the high cost per voter, the problem is with the voters who don’t show up for the election. Perhaps a tax for not voting - we have the voter list, send a bill for $10 to anyone who doesn’t vote.

   I love these special elections. In the general election cycle, incumbents rule. Here’s our one chance to make a real choice. Nothing else to clutter up the ballot. Lots of good candidates. We should have more of these things, not less.

   And until they repeal Proposition 2.5, all the state-mandated special elections should be picked up by the state.

7. Mr. Lynne Says:
   November 24th, 2007 at 9:39 am

   Its hardly unconstitutional in general. Employment contracts can have early termination penalty clauses (for either side), and often do. Such a provision for a public office could prove an interesting question though. The terms of the job would have to be explicit in the description, which may or may not require an amendment.

8. Pablo Says:
   November 24th, 2007 at 10:33 am

   Assuming it is constitutional, which I contend is a huge assumption, you face some other critical problems.

   First, you would be creating an incentive for a legislator (a part-time job) to NOT resign, hold the seat (an the paycheck) and just not show up at the statehouse.

   Other questions: In the Fourth Middlesex, a sitting state legislator (Jim Marzilli) won the Democratic primary, and will likely be elected to the senate seat next month. Would he need to pay for the house election? He needs to resign the house seat to take the senate seat.

   If you move out of the district, which legally disqualifies you from serving, do you need to pay?

   If you die, and they hold a special election, does your estate need to pay?

   It seems the first obligation of the government is to hold elections. Once we walk away from that first obligation, even by baby steps, we are on the road to losing our democracy.

9. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   November 24th, 2007 at 1:35 pm

   I think requiring an office holder leaving office early for another post helping to pay for a special election from campaign coffers is a good idea.

   Obvioulsy resigning for health is a very good reason for a resignation, but to leave because you want a better post? Wait til your contract (term) expires like everyone else. (Ask Howie Carr how that works)

   Pablo, I don’t see how it would be unconstitutional since the campaign money is not his/her personal funds and would not constitute a financial penalty to the suddenly resigning official since it isn’t their money to begin with.

10. Mr. Lynne Says:
    November 24th, 2007 at 3:31 pm

    Like I said. In general, such employment contracts are not only constitutional, but I couldn’t name a state where they were illegal. The question is weather such a contract is legal for constitutional office-holders. The terms for service are encoded in laws and in the constitution. As such, I don’t see where there would be a problem if the terms were altered to accommodate such a proposal in laws or amendments. The judicial system, of course, may disagree,… I just don’t see on what grounds. Of course the legal and constitutional devils would likely be in the details.

    All that said, I’m not sure if its a good idea or not. Have to think upon in some more.

11. Christopher Says:
    November 24th, 2007 at 5:44 pm

    The dates to fill the vacancy created by Mike Festa has been announced.
    See http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=0F927523B2CF7818065B7DA4372F4DC8?diaryId=9514

12. Mimi Says:
    November 24th, 2007 at 8:02 pm

    Pablo:

    I will be sure to check the Constitution but meanwhile let me tell you about the reality that is the City of Lowell. This fall, we had to ask the State Legislature to pass a home rule petition to allow us NOT to hold primary election for the municipal offices. And the reasoning, with this Congressional special elections, we could not afford another election. The legislature agreed and the Governor signed the home rule petition.

    We do not have extra funds. If we did, we would probably hire one or two policemen; if we did we would have all of our fire station opened all the time, instead of on a rotating basis; if we had extra funds perhaps our public swimming pools would be open in the summer so the kids would have something to do. But we have no extra money.

    So, when an elected official starts looking for a job a few months after he was re-elected and gets that position in the public sector (or as a lobbyist), I think he should bear the cost of the special election; the same way you and I would pay a job placement firm.

13. C R Krieger Says:
    November 25th, 2007 at 12:24 am

    Having the outgoing legislator pay for a special election out of his or her campaign fund is one thing. Out of his or her own pocket is another. Does David Nangle really have $60K of loose change? I doubt it and forcing him to mortgage his house would be wrong.

    There is a cost, but also a value to special elections. There is precious little real movement in our Government as it is, so we should not be discouraging it.

    Pablo has it right about special elections: “I love these special elections. In the general election cycle, incumbents rule. Here’s our one chance to make a real choice.” Or a real change.

    Would that we could turn out more voters and drive the cost per vote down. (Granted, the overall cost would still be the same.)

    Regards — Cliff

14. Robby Says:
    November 26th, 2007 at 8:26 am

    Heres the perfect solution to prevent this from happening:

    Stop electing those who are only in office for thier own personal greed.

    Its up to these politicians to do whats right for the people and not resign simply for thier own benefit.

    Don’t like what thier doing?? STOP VOTING FOR THEM!

15. Mimi Says:
    November 26th, 2007 at 11:27 am

    Cliff:

    I am not expecting Nangle or anyone else to pay out of their own pocket; I just made that suggestion because I am frustrated that elected officials who have decided to go on to bigger and better things, leave their office with plenty of money in their campaign coffers but do not take into consideration the cost to the taxpayers when they decide a few months into their term to leave.

    I am concerned that this is becoming a trend and I want us to be cognizant that’s all. By the way, shouldn’t the announcement be made shortly; otherwise we may miss the February 5th date.

16. Anonymous Says:
    November 26th, 2007 at 2:19 pm

    He moved out of the district (and the state) a long time ago.

17. MikeC01824 Says:
    November 28th, 2007 at 1:02 pm

    When government has been starved to the point where we can’t afford elections, I’d say we’ve gone off the rails.

    If I donated money to a candidate, I expect them to use it to get elected, not sponsor elections that they’re not even in.

    Want to reign in these giant campaign war chests and make it easier for challengers who really want the job? Get behind campaign finance reform.

18. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    November 28th, 2007 at 10:10 pm

    I don’t know quite how to read this report, but if I understand it correctly David Nangle has just under $18,000 in his warchest, so if he leaves to become “Sergeant at Arms”, that key post in the Commonwealth, he should split the $18k propotionally between the communities that will have to foot the bill for his upward mobility!

    http://www.efs2.cpf.state.ma.us/EFSprod/servlet/LegReports?p_OfficeGroup=Middlesex

    Anonymous….who moved out of the district and out of state?

19. Anonymous Says:
    November 29th, 2007 at 7:13 am

    ER:

    It’s a not so closely guarded secret that a certain state rep, soon to be extremely overpaid doorman, moved to a NH beach town, without giving up his house seat.

20. Lynne Says:
    November 29th, 2007 at 10:20 am

    There’s limits to what you can do with campaign (donated) money, and rightly so.

    And Mike is right - it’s sad when we don’t have the money to pay for elections. (And about campaign finance reform, which starts with reversing the idiotic “Money = Speech” Supreme Court decision, which will take a long time.)

    However, it does seem to be a trend that elected officials are leaving office in the middle of terms to take lucrative jobs. In particular, I would like to see a ban on taking a lobbying job for something on the order of 5 years after leaving office. Obviously the Sergeant at Arms job isn’t a lobbying job, even if it tends to be a hack reward, so it wouldn’t count. But I do NOT think that people who go into public service should be able to turn around and sell that influence for lobbying firms and the sorts of corporations which can afford to buy their services.

    I think that would be the practical and ethical way to lessen the number of elected officials jumping ship unexpectedly in the middle of their term after they’ve just recently asked the voter for their support as a representative. Public trust should remain just that.

21. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    November 29th, 2007 at 8:04 pm

    Anonymous…So, if a certain state rep, that is about to attain military rank, lives out of state can that particular state rep actually be appointed to the post in question legally?

    And since we aren’t naming names, what NH beach town does this particular person live in and when did he/she move his/her primary residence?

Leave a Reply