As someone from Missouri who voted for Carnahan, I would prefer to have
someone in the U.S. Senate who better represents my political views than
Ashcroft (who is from Springfield, Mo where I reside).   (Although this was
before my time, the talk on campus is that he was not one of our most
steller business law teachers.)  I do have great respect for the grace and
honor with which he has handle this defeat and his decision not to lead a
Constitutional challenge.  If he decides to run and attempt to recapture the
Senate seat in two years (when we must hold an election on that issue), the
dignity with which he has acted in the past month will gain him votes.

Yes, there is a legitimate Constitutional question as to whether Carnahan
had to be a living resident on the day of the day of the election (or only
at the time that his name was placed on the ballot).  Some Republicans still
want to challenge the election, even though Senator Ashcroft has asked them
not to do so.


Statutory interpretation:
As interesting is the issue concerning votes cast after 7:00 in St. Louis.
If one is in line at 7:00 (or inside a polling place), that person should be
allowed to vote after 7:00.  Apparently, some of the polling places did not
have complete voter registration lists (only lists of those who had voted
recently), so it sent voters whose names were not on the list downtown to
the central office to be varified.  Where did they have to be in line at
7:00 -- the original polling place, the central verification office or did
they have to get back to the original polling place???  There were an
estimated 6000-12,000 votes  thusly generated when the polls were held open
for an extra hour under Circuit trial court order(until an appellate court
ordered them closed).   This number could affect local elections, but not
the outcome of any statewide races.

Carol Miller
SMSU

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Hurley [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 10:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Election Lessons


I wonder if it is better to vote for a deceased person (MO.-2000) for US
Senate than be deceased and vote for a US President (IL.-1960)?



-----Original Message-----
From: Levin, Murray S [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 11:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Election Lessons


Mike,

The issue here was whether one would rather elect (1) a dead senator (or the
unknown person who would be appointed to fill that void) or (2) a relatively
undistinguished incumbent who campaigns as a Christian conservative and who
also happens to be a former business law professor.

Murray Levin
University of Kansas

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Katz [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 6:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Election Lessons


Hello all,
    I too had recently given thought as to the viability of continuing the
electoral college.  Remember that one of the reasons that the electoral
college was created was because our founders didn't entirely trust the
masses
to make proper decisions.  Just as I'm convinced that times have changed and

the electoral college should be retired, the citizens of Missouri proved our

founders to be absolutely correct.  How can the voters of a state elect a
dead person to be governor?????????  I don't know much about Missouri other
than St. Louis was a pretty nice city.  It's not one of those let's go to
the
family reunion to look for a date states.  What were they thinking (assuming

that thinking was taking place)??????

Mike