Gotta love Jersey politics...

[alexpgp]

The 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...

Comments

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

Actually, the real error in the Democrat argument is that if the law is followed there will be two candidates on the Ballot and the Democrat will be Toricelli. The deadline for withdrawing has also (simultaneously) passed and, absent court action, Torricelli will remain on the ballot.

Years ago I entered the Republican primary for Congress at the request of a variety of high ranking party members since it was thought that I would bring moderate voters in my silk stocking district to the Repbulican side (which in the event was what happened).

But the raving rightwingers considered me "too liberal" and ran a candidate against me. Their campaign was really nasty and I announced that I was sick and tired of the whole thing and withdrew. But the law was such that although I ceased to campaign I could not leave the ballot. As it was I won the primary anyway. When called by a reporter and informed that I had won (by the smallest Congressional primary majority in Misssouri history) my first comment was "I demand a recount!"

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

So you got to do what Wm. F. Buckley. Jr. only threatened to do, back in '65. Cool.

Cheers...

Re:

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

I admit to being inspired by Bill, for whom I worked during the summers in the 60's.

[egofood.livejournal.com]

I think in the end, it may not matter who is elected but it will matter tremendously if the Democrat voters in that state send their party a clear and unambiguous message by writing in their votes for Torricelli. So long as Torricelli beats Lautenberg (regardless of whether or not he wins the overall race) then the rule of law will have won big by reminding those that would govern that they are accountable to those whom they would govern. I find it amusing that the media seems to have ignored that the guy they were trumpeting so confidently as the certain replacement DECLINED THE HONOR, as did the second guy the Governor asked.

[volkris.livejournal.com]

Also consider that the replacement is doing horribly in the polls right now.... what's to stop the party from taking him out (asking him to withdraw) and putting someone else in? They could just keep on doing it until they find the right guy at this rate.

I believe I heard that absentee ballots have already been received too. These poor people seem to have been voting on the wrong election!