“A judge, other than a probate judge, appointed to fill a vacancy, shall serve an initial term lasting until the first Monday after the second Tuesday in January following the next general election held after he has completed one year in office.”

I stand by my original comment (except perhaps for my remark about probate judges). If Justice See were to leave office less than a year before the “next general election,” the successor would not complete one year in office before the 2008 general election, thereby bumping the seat to 2010. In that hypothetical situation, the Governor would not get the power to repeatedly reshuffle unless the *new appointee* could be convinced to step down less than one year before 2010.

And an appointee does not serve a full six year term before comming up for election. If an appointment is made within 18 months (I think that is the treshold, it could be different)of the elected term, then the appointed judge runs in the next cycle after the expired term. So if See stepped down and Riley appointed someone 10 months before See’s term expired, then that person would be on the ballot in 2010 rather than 2008.

As for Rove, the Atlantic article is decidedly one sided. As the years pass the legend grows. People do seem to forget about the skunk ads that ingram ran and the intimations that See was not qualified because he had not passed the bar exam. In fact, it was the nastiness of Ingram’s campaign that seemed to swing many to See’s side in the race.