DL Open Thread Wednesday July 27 2022
Today’s top story only tangentially involves the convicted state auditor. Last night Lydia York was endorsed by the Democratic State Executive Committee.
Per the Del Dems web site, there are 27 voting members of the State Executive Committee. In addition to the statewide leadership, each subdivision is represented at the State Executive Committee by the subdivision chair, treasurer, and at-large members.
According to sources, there were zero “no”votes, but two people abstained from the vote. I can’t imagine that anyone challenging a statewide incumbent ever got the endorsement of this committee.
What a wild and raucous day of blogging we had yesterday. If you missed it, I’ve rescued a comment (below) from Gary Myers which makes a strong case that Pete is constitutionally obligated to consider the resolution passed by the Senate to get rid of the convicted state auditor.
Maybe the news that McGuiness was (no doubt illegally) reading the emails of as yet undisclosed civilians will move Pete off his hardline defense of McGuiness? Who knows. The lumbering red-faced fatso is accustomed to getting his way and I’d wager that whatever disgusting thing motivated him to take a bizarrely hardline stance in defense of the convicted state auditor is still motivating him.
Speaking of wagers, Mega Millions jackpot surges to $1.02 billion after no winner Tuesday. The expected value (EV) of buying a $2.00 MegaMillions lottery ticket is still not in your favor, but there is one statistic that makes buying your $2.00 ticket financially defensible. There is a near 100% chance that someone is going to win eventually. So, see you in line at the package store.
In still other news, $25,000 from Georgetown Town Council to fund a racist flag display seems like a lot to me. (I had previously reported in the comments of another thread that is was $2,000).
Gary Myers says:
While I am far, far from being an expert on the constitutional rules governing the General Assembly’s proceedings, I think there is a substantial question whether the Speaker of the House can refuse to “call in” the House members to sit to consider the Senate’s passed resolution to begin a process of removing the auditor.Technically, the General Assembly remains currently in session under the “special session” called by either the leadership or Gov. on July 1, 2022. The chambers simply earlier recessed to the call of the President or Speaker because no further business was before either back in July, However, when the Senate took up the McGinness resolution, it was back being active during the session. And such action by the Senate, given that the GA is still is session, puts the whole GA back in active mode.
The kicker here ( I think) is that Art, II, sec 12 of the State Constitution prevents one house from adjourning (and hence not sitting) for more than 3 days without the consent of the other chamber. The idea behind the constitutional provision is that one house can’t go “missing” on the other while the GA is in session and the one house is acting on legislative matters, unless the active house has consented to the other chamber’s absence lasting more than than 3 days, At least on the federal level, such consent comes via a concurrent resolution,
Consequently, when the Senate went active last week and took up the McGinness resolution, the House can’t stay out past three days under section 12. It has to return to take up the Senate business that is being presented to the House, Only if the Senate consented to the House’s continued absence can the House continue not to act. I am not sure that the Senate gave any such consent,
As I said, I am not expert in this realm but I think the Speaker’s refusal to call in House members violated Art. sec, 12,. But I confess I the above is just a theory from text and purpose, Perhaps, those more knowledgable can explain why section 12 does not apply.
Otherwise, the Speaker’s statements and non-action run afoul of Section 12
Party endorsing in a primary is a bad precedent for the leftist challengers.
Most likely judicial outcome. Judge Carpenter upholds the verdict. Sentence is 60 days suspended and $5,000 fine. But it’s 2 weeks till the primary. Carney doesn’t act.
McGuiness beats Lydia York.
To quote Senior Legal Correspondent Bill Martin, “It’s exactly what the DE Dem Party deserves.”
I urge you all to join me in voting for Kathy in the primary. (I’m voting for Kathy in the primary.)
nihilism?
Comedy.
Seriously though. If we voted for reps, senators, governor and LTG… and those elected officials don’t take responsibility, I feel like I shouldn’t take responsibility either.
Endorsing in the primary happens all the time. Endorsing the challenger is rare.
But if you think that this bodes poorly for future challengers, I’d offer that there are at least 2 members of that committee that have strong ties to the WFP. They were not the abstentions.
I know! (I knew a few days ago.)
Should have been clearer on the endorsement opinion. Consider this example. Everyone’s mad at Madinah and Jerry H throws his money behind an establishment figure (a stakeholder™️). How long before the establishment endorses challenger in that scenario?
Vote McGuiness! Four more years.
Of course the Dem elected officials we already voted for could take responsibility. How about kicking Pete out of the Party? Lol
In general, I prefer that the State Party stay out of primaries. I was pleased that Erik Raser-Schramm followed that practice.
However, in this case, they did what had to be done. Someone as corrupt as KMG has no place holding public office.
I pretty much agree with Steve here. But I can’t say something so reasonable in public. It would tarnish my well-concieved reputation.
“The lumbering red-faced fatso is accustomed to getting his way and I’d wager that whatever disgusting thing motivated him to take a bizarrely hardline stance in defense of the convicted state auditor is still motivating him.”
Excellent sentence.
“The lumbering red-faced fatso is accustomed to getting his way”. Love it!
As ever it seems the contest between Seaford and Georgetown to be the worst of the worst goes on., in this case it’s Jesus, Jesus, Jesus vs. the traitor flag of the Confederates. Nice to know that like virtually all states we are self humiliating.
The phrase “lumbering red-faced fatso” adds nothing to the discussion and is factually incorrect.
Fuck off.
Well Said Sir! Indeed: Fuck Off!
Haha.
Which part is inaccurate?
The State Party did endorse a challenger to an incumbent at least once- in 2012 it endorsed Mitch Crane against incumbent Insurance Commissioner Karen Weldin Stewart. Crane lost the Primary by 1100 votes.
State Party endorsements are two-edged swords. It sways the dwindling number of party loyalists but turns off voters who oppose party organizations. That trend grew after the Party, in 2008, endorsed then- Lt. Governor John Carney over then-State Treasurer Jack Markell. Markell won by 1700 votes.
I continue to be amazed that my Party’s Executives are empowered to endorse in a primary, excepting in cases of deeply flawed contestants who have broken party rules or are under indictment. The practice is deeply elitist and violates the power of the grassroots in the party. It demeans the very purpose of primaries.
The State Democratic Party has gotten out of the business of endorsing–at least over the last eight years or so.
This, however, is the one exception that necessitated action, and I’m glad the Party did it.
@Stan: You say this as if it were a bug. They consider it a feature.
Sad to see the Delaware Independent shut down after only a year: https://www.delawareindependent.com/a-farewell-the-end-of-the-delaware-independent/
Running a news business is hard. It was a worthwhile effort.