Minty Green
Why did (do) the voters still have a choice with Carnahan and Mink on the ballots after they died, but voters would be harmed if we don’t let Torrecelli off just because he is losing?
It seems to me that the voters were in the process of speaking in NJ, especially as the voting had already started. The only people short-circutting democracy in this case are those that are halting the voting while it is in progress because they don’t like the way the vote is going.
Bad argument, IV. While some absentee ballots have gone out with the Torch’s name on them, I have not heard anyone state (nor did the GOP lawyers argue) that any have been received. In any event, the voting hasn’t been “halted.”
Furthermore, even if some have been sent back, they haven’t been counted. So there is no evidence that the Dems are losing the vote yet. They are simply losing in the polls, which is a different thing.
Sua
Actually, I heard that a dozen or so had been returned already. And you’re right, it’s not the end of the world if they haven’t been counted - the people will just need to vote again.
But that irks me, and I don’t even live there anymore. Why should these people have to vote a second time? Not their fault the Dems didn’t convince the Torch to step down before the deadline. If I had to vote on an absentee ballot again, I’d be pissed.
I’m not arguing one way or another about the other cases, but they undoubtedly are different.
In Missouri, Gov. Carnahan was killed in a plane crash the night of October 16. The residents were generally in a state of shock and mourning. There also was the matter of the Presidential debate held in the state a few days later that added to the confusion.
There apparently was nothing specific in the state law concerning the death of a candidate so near the election and party officials decided not to legally attempt to remove his name from the ballot.
While Mrs. Carnahan did not publicly state she definately would accept appointment to the Senate if her husband won, or even that the new Governor would offer her the job, there was general belief a vote for her late husband was a vote for her.
Short answer: New Jersey law permits substitution in Torrecelli’s circumstances. Hawaii and Missouri law apparently do not allow substitution under the circumstances present in those cases. Different law + different facts = different results.
This was never supposed to be it’s own thread. I meant to post it on the end of the other one.
Sorry about that, I’ll be more careful next time. If there is a way to move this over there, then tell me how.
SuaSponte
Almost 10% of the absentee ballots have been mailed out. That means the voting has already started. I’ve heard that some ballots have been returned, but I’m not confident I could go out and get a cite for that so I won’t claim it.
I don’t think it matters though, as once the ballots have been mailed, they are “in play” so to speak.
minty green
New Jersey law permits substitution in Torrecelli’s circumstances.
Actually, nothing in NJ law permits this.
It was the SCONJ that permitted it. Laws are made by legislatures, and the law is quite clear that the deadline for substitutions is 51 days.
Puh-leez. Courts make law all the time, sometimes out of whole cloth (“common law”) and sometimes by interpreting statutes susceptible of different interpretations. The NJ decision was merely an example of the latter, backed up by 50 years of precedent that the NJ legislature had never bothered to contradict.
The ruling is complete bullshit, minty. There’s no reason on Earth his name should be replaced.
The disgusting Republican lie that this statute has anything to do with putting names on ballots must have been accepted as true by you too, huh dan? Here it is. Note that it doesn’t say anything at all placing about names on ballots–it does nothing more than establish the procedures for parties to choose replacement candidates.
Doesn’t change the fact that there’s no reason he should be replaced. He quit the race. He didn’t die.
Not only that, but it’s not as if this crap came up overnight. He was chastised by his own colleagues in July, for crying out loud. His party didn’t go on about replacing him on the ballot until it was painfully obvious that he was going to lose. That’s why it’s bullshit.
Signed, a registered Democrat
So butthead quit, and therefore the people of New Jersey should be denied an accurate ballot on which to vote next month? Nonsense.
Yes, actually.
Look, you don’t have to have both parties represented in order to have a real ballot. Races go uncontested all the time. I just think it’s a crappy idea to let a party change its candidate this close to the election - past the deadline.
Not to mention the fact that there are ballots that have already been sent out and returned. Now those folks will need to vote a second time.
What fucking deadline? Read the statute.
The link keeps coming up as “page cannot be displayed,” which I suspect is a timeout problem on my end. I’ll have to keep on trying.
So…as was brought up on a local radio station (New Jersey 101.5, to be exact)…
If Lautenberg (sp?) is behind in the polls next week, the Democrats can replace him…to be replaced by someone else a week later…to be replaced by someone ELSE…
Jesus Christ, there is a reason for statutes such as this; to prevent complete and utter chaos at the polls (lessee…who’s on the ballot today?..or is this yesterday’s ballot??).
As I see it, this was a deliberate action by the Democratic party and Toricelli. KNOWING that Toricelli was way behind in the polls and would probably lose, they deliberately waited until after the legal deadline (btw, someone should explain the definition of legal to the Democratic party) with this idea in mind:
That the Republicans would properly complain about the breaking of the law, which then allows the Democrats to scream about the Republicans disenfranchising voters!!!
Hell, if ANYONE is liable for disenfranchising any voters, it’s Toricelli, for pulling this fucking stunt.
Well, not to get away from his timing, but I tend to agree with you, Toaster. The party itself only seemed to step in when Torricelli’s opponent (whose big “issue” was that he was Not Bob) started to pull away in the polls.
I don’t want to smear the entire party and all of its candidates. Bob Torricelli has proven himself to be one of the slimiest people I’ve ever seen, and if his name were left on the ballot, he would have lost badly. Frank Lautenberg might be the nicest guy out there (though perhaps a little old), but if they seriously wanted him as a candidate, they should have asked him back in July when the shit hit the fan in the first place.
I see you’ve decided to join The Big Fat Republican Lie too, eh Toaster52? The law that the Republicans are lying about when they claim it’s been broken is N.J. Stat. 19:13-20.
Apparently my link above isn’t working, so click on this link, then click on “New Jersey Statutes.” That will take you to the terribly designed NJ Legislature site. From there, click on the + sign next to “Title 19: Elections.” That will expand the list. Scroll all the way down to the botton of the screen, and click on the forward arrow at the bottom right. Keep forwarding until you see 19:13-20, and there you have it: a statute that doesn’t say anything at all about placing names on ballots.
Would you believe that link (the NJ Statutes one) is not working for me, either? Must be all of us trying to check it out at once. 
Looks like Findlaw is down. Oh well, try googling New Jersey Legislature.
Here’s a quote from an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer (through Howard Kurtz’s Media Notes column at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42423-2002Oct4.html):
So this is the deadline to which I was referring. I’m trying to look at it from both sides - if the Republicans were the ones trying to put a new name on the ballot, Democrats would also be up in arms over it.
Now, if Torricelli had died during the campaign, that would be one thing. But he willfully withdrew from the race. He did so well within 51 days of the election, which apparently is against that specific statute. Why should an exception be made?