Padilla vs. Padilla

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

As you certainly know, California holds two U.S. Senate elections next Tuesday: a regular senatorial election for the Class 3 seat, and one to fill the "vacancy" created by Kamala Harris's election to the vice presidency. Incumbent Democratic Senator Alex Padilla was appointed in 2021 by Governor Gavin Newsom.
A jungle primary for both elections were held on June 7, in both of which Democrat Alex Padilla and Republican Mark P. Meuser advanced to the general election.

One thing's for certain: There will be some Californians who are going to "split" their votes between Padilla and Meuser.
Which kind of "vote-splitting" will occur more often in your estimation: Padilla-Meuser or Meuser-Padilla?
What could be the intention of vote-splitting in this election, outside of indecision, political illiteracy and the lulz?

The following scenario won't occur, since California is a deep blue state, but what would happen if Meuser were to be elected to fill the remainder of Harris' senatorial term, while Padilla would win the regular election?
Would Padilla have to step down? Immediately? And would he lose his sessional expenses for the remaining weeks of the 117th United States Congress; and would he be forced to move out of his bureau and fire his office workers - just in order to move in and and hire employees in January again, when the 118th Congress convenes? And would Meuser benefit financially from his two months' "work", and would he get his own bureau and office workers for the few weeks of him representing California in the U.S. Senate?

Come on, this is silly. This is Californian election law, not a federal law, right? I can't remember a state having held two elections for the same seat on the same day. If I I recall correctly, the vacancy of a seat is normally "settled" by appointing an interim senator. Or, respectively, the special election is held during an off-term election, or even right in the middle of a term. Martha Coakley, for instance, lost her special election on January 19, 2010.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Guys, this is a serious question: Does only California hold such a superfluous "double election" for the approval of an appointed U.S. senator, or do other states do that also?

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Guys, this is a serious question: Does only California hold such a superfluous "double election" for the approval of an appointed U.S. senator, or do other states do that also?

The appointed incumbent didn't run, but Illinois 2010 had both a special and a regular election for Senate that year.

[Tintrlvr]

Not Senate, but a version of this happened when Rashida Tlaib first entered Congress. She lost the Democratic primary for the special to Brenda Jones but won the primary for the general, so the Democratic nominee for the special and the general were different, even though both elections were held on the same day. Brenda Jones then served for a few weeks until January, when Tlaib took over.

[Senator Incitatus]

Guys, this is a serious question: Does only California hold such a superfluous "double election" for the approval of an appointed U.S. senator, or do other states do that also?

Historically speaking, it's somewhat common. There are at least a couple dozen instances.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Guys, this is a serious question: Does only California hold such a superfluous "double election" for the approval of an appointed U.S. senator, or do other states do that also?

Historically speaking, it's somewhat common. There are at least a couple dozen instances.

That's just silly. Granted, I consider the opportunity for the citizens to approve a gubernatorial-appointed senator very democratic, but the special election ought to be held way earlier, like Massachusetts handles such a situation (see Coakley).

[Senator Incitatus]

Guys, this is a serious question: Does only California hold such a superfluous "double election" for the approval of an appointed U.S. senator, or do other states do that also?

Historically speaking, it's somewhat common. There are at least a couple dozen instances.

That's just silly. Granted, I consider the opportunity for the citizens to approve a gubernatorial-appointed senator very democratic, but the special election ought to be held way earlier, like Massachusetts handles such a situation (see Coakley).

Sometimes Senators just die or resign shortly before an election.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Sometimes Senators just die or resign shortly before an election.

In that case, an approval of the Senator shouldn't be necessary in my opinion.

[Senator Incitatus]

Sometimes Senators just die or resign shortly before an election.

In that case, an approval of the Senator shouldn't be necessary in my opinion.

I believe most state law requires the election be held as soon as practicable, and there is no plausible argument that it is impractical to hold a special election alongside a general election for the next term.