![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Gotta love Jersey politics...
Oct. 4th, 2002 03:14 pmThe NJ Supreme Court says it's okay for the Democratic Party to substitute a candidate on the ballot, even though the deadline for getting on the ballot, September 16, has passed.
The Court based its decision on the importance of having two candidates on the ballot for the election. The Republicans, of course, are really upset, arguing that the US Constitution gives state legislatures the power to set the time, place, and manner of elections, and that the Court overstepped its authority in this case.
Not that it really matters much, but I sort of side with the Republicans on this one.
Consider this: What if the either the Republicans or Democrats decided, next time, to simply take their sweet time in deciding who was to run? Let the deadline pass without stating who would stand for election or reelection? Would the Court, based on the "it's important to have two candidates" argument allow a party to file late?
Consider this: The Democrats could still run a candidate as a write-in candidate. That would address the problem of having only one candidate in the race, although it would be unacceptable for other, purely pragmatic reasons (for example, anyone who blindly votes Democratic wouldn't know who to vote for, and I'd say probably 99% of voters have never voted on the write-in line and would feel uncomfortable doing so.)
In the end, of course, it won't really matter who's elected. The difference between Republicans and Democrats, generally speaking, is the sequence of letters one presses on the keyboard to type their names.
Cheers...
The Court based its decision on the importance of having two candidates on the ballot for the election. The Republicans, of course, are really upset, arguing that the US Constitution gives state legislatures the power to set the time, place, and manner of elections, and that the Court overstepped its authority in this case.
Not that it really matters much, but I sort of side with the Republicans on this one.
Consider this: What if the either the Republicans or Democrats decided, next time, to simply take their sweet time in deciding who was to run? Let the deadline pass without stating who would stand for election or reelection? Would the Court, based on the "it's important to have two candidates" argument allow a party to file late?
Consider this: The Democrats could still run a candidate as a write-in candidate. That would address the problem of having only one candidate in the race, although it would be unacceptable for other, purely pragmatic reasons (for example, anyone who blindly votes Democratic wouldn't know who to vote for, and I'd say probably 99% of voters have never voted on the write-in line and would feel uncomfortable doing so.)
In the end, of course, it won't really matter who's elected. The difference between Republicans and Democrats, generally speaking, is the sequence of letters one presses on the keyboard to type their names.
Cheers...
