# Missouri, Hawai and New Jersey **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 3, 2002, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667 "2002-10-03T13:23:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667/41 "2002-10-04T20:07:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > In any event, “common sense” in this context are the rules of statutory construction - the common sense rules that have developed over centuries of common law to deal with how to intepret a statute. And one of them is that you do not read in to them what is not there. Gee, I thought this was _my_ argument. > [@](#): > > As a general rule of American law, that which is not prohibited is allowed. But, applying the rule in this case would allow the SC to switch candidates the morning of the election. > [@](#): > > Undoing an election result bears no similarities with changing the name of a candidate. While this is self-evident to those with forebrains, You are stooping to insult because you have a weak argument. They are indeed simlar in one key respect: Neither is permitted by NJ statute (within 51 days) > [@](#): > > I’ll point out a conclusive difference. Altering election results _is_ prohibited - by the U.S. and N.J. Constitutions. It’s written down - it’s just written down somewhere else. Do you have the cite? And, yet you pointed out that a court _can and has_ declared an election void and called a new election. > [@](#): > > While you may wish actuaries to make legal decisions, the U.S. Constitution calls for the judiciary to make such decisions. I think you are incorrect. Legal practice going back before the Constitution included judge-made “common” law. No doubt the writers of the Constitution contemplated a continuance of this practice. However, to the best of my knowledge this practice is not mentioned in the Constitution. In a way, I wish it were, because then there might be express limits. > [@](#): > > Do you wish courts to take into consideration the voting proclivities of particular classes of society, and base their decisions upon those proclivities? An unwarranted intrusion of politics into judicial affairs. I expect the Court _did_ take voting proclivities into account. One way or another, I would like to believe that the Court considered whether a fair election could be conducted given the reduced time. > [@](#): > > They made no such assumption. The parties had the burden of demonstrating the (i) there was enough time (the Dems) or (ii) there wasn’t enough time (the GOP). The NJSC concluded that the Democrats had made the better argument. If your experience is the norm, then the GOP’s attorneys screwed up by not presenting that evidence - not the court. I don’t agree. The _legislature_ already made a determination that 51 days were needed. The burden ought to be on the Court to show that the Legislature was wrong. As far as the Reps screwing up, I believe the decision was made before the Court ever met. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667/42 "2002-10-04T20:11:29Z")
**Toaster,** why do you keep claiming there was a legally-mandated deadline? The New Jersey Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of New Jersey State law (not even the U.S.S.C. can overrule the N.J.S.C. on state law issues), has determined there is no legally mandated deadline for the filling of a vacancy on the ballot under New Jersey law. That’s it. That’s the end of the discussion. If you think there should be a legally mandated deadline, fine. Write to your legislator and ask him/her to introduce a bill to that effect. But until such a bill is introduced, voted on and signed by the Governor, the N.J.S.C. has spoken. _See Marbury v. Madison_ “It is emphatically the role of the courts to say what the law is.” (paraphrased from memory). Sua ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667/43 "2002-10-04T20:23:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Oh, wait, you may be arguing that only the Republicans and the loony parties should have their Senate candidates’ names on the ballot, aren’t you? Sorry, that transparent Republicans-must-win argument doesn’t carry any water with me. Oh, I’m sorry, I thought this was a forum for intelligent debate, not for random screeds disregarding opinions you don’t like as “Republicans-must-win arguments”. I would have the exact same opinion if some Republican hack was trying to pull this crap. The Democratic candidate decided to yank his name - that should be his problem, not ours. Like I said before, if the voters really want him, they can write him in - or anyone else they choose. > [@](#): > > And I believe I already stated in the other thread where the cutoff should be: How long does it take to design, print, and distribute ballots? There’s a problem there. Democracy isn’t defined as the ability for people to pull a lever and choose a candidate. Any monkey can do that. They have elections in dictatorships all the time - that doesn’t make them democracies. An important part of a _healthy_ democracy is that people get to make informed decisions. This requires that certain rules be put forth to define the campaign process. Candidates should be given enough time to campaign that the voters can actually get a good idea of what they’re about. If two candidates are in the race, and spend 6 months slinging mud at each other, and suddenly Party A yanks Candidate A so they can drop in someone squeaky clean two weeks before the election, this seriously undermines the campaigning process. New Candidate A now has all the benefits of his predecessor’s mud-slinging, can take the high ground and denounce negative campaigning, and Candidate B is pretty much screwed. I suppose that now Party B can yank Candidate B and put in someone else as well, but is that really how we want our election process to work? This is just one scenario to illustrate why candidates need to follow certain deadline rules in order to give the election process any meaning. If we’re not going to follow procedure, we may was well just have the voters flip a coin. Jeff ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667/44 "2002-10-04T20:40:09Z")
Really, december, still crying “51 days!” all the time without showing that the legislature said anything at all about ballots and candidates after that time? You’re as bad as Toaster. Let’s put it this way: The New Jersey Legislature has undoubtedly provided for toilets to be installed at highway rest stops. Is it your position that the Lege has thereby prohibited using the toilet in your home? Now for the common law and the Constitution. Well, I disagree slightly with Sua so far as he states what’s happened here is an exercise of the common law. Instead, I would describe it as a simple exercise of the courts’ constitutional authority to be the arbiter of what the law requires. In this case, we absolutely know that the 17th Amendment requires an election for the office of Senator from New Jersey. Upon looking at it, I note also that XVII doesn’t say one damn thing about the election for Senator being held under rules established by the state legislature either, so there’s another blatant falsehood being spread around by hysterical Republicans whose heads haven’t had the common decency to explode yet. Anyway, there’s a Constitutional imperitive for New Jersey to hold an election, and the Lege has set up some rules for how that should happen, but it hasn’t set up a rule that resolves this particular set of circumstances. So what is the court supposed to do? It can either decided to forbid the substitution, or it can allow the substitution. Either way, it’s deciding something the Lege has not decided. But the Lege has shown a strong preference for putting major (and minor) party candidates on the ballot, and allowing the substitution is more consistent with that policy than forbidding the substitution would be. Thus, the decision gives effect to the general intent of the Legislature even though that Lege did not express a specific intent in this instance. Funnily enough, even if the NJ Legislature repealed every single state election law tomorrow morning, there would STILL have to be an election for Senator, thanks to the 17th Amendment. But under your scheme, the courts would be absolutely powerless to do anything to effect or govern that election, or even assure that one occurred. Damned by your logic if they do establish rules, damned by the Constitution if they don’t. I’ll take the Constitution over you any day. And by the way, the Constitution does explicitly recognize the existence of common law in at least one point: Amendment VII. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667/45 "2002-10-04T20:41:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > I don’t agree. The _legislature_ already made a determination that 51 days were needed. The burden ought to be on the Court to show that the Legislature was wrong. Point out precisely where the Legislature made that determination. The statute in question has been linked several times in this thread. I have read it and found no such determination. All the legislature had to do was add the sentence “vacancies on the ballot may not be filled less than 51 days prior to the general election.” It didn’t. Either the legislature - and indeed, every N.J. legislature for the past 50-odd years - were blithering idiots, or they chose to leave the matter open. And when a matter is open, under the common law, the courts decide. End of story. That’s the way it has been for 200+ years. Why would a conservative like you wish to drastically alter the basic common law that has served America since even before it was a nation? > [@](#): > > You are stooping to insult because you have a weak argument. Actually, I have an exceedingly strong argument. Ya know how I know I have an amazingly strong arguments? Because the N.J.S.C., _which is the final interpreter of N.J. law,_ agrees with me. And if they agree with me, the issue is closed, and I am dead-on accurate. You may argue that the N.J.S.C. got it wrong, but in doing so you are in the same position as a Roman Catholic arguing that Mary was not bodily assumed into heaven. The Pope, speaking infallibly, says that she did. Thus, she did, if you are a Catholic. The New Jersey Supreme Court says that the N.J. election law allows substitutions on the 30-odd day before an election, so it does allow substitutions. Period. End of story. > [@](#): > > And, yet you pointed out that a court can and has declared an election void and called a new election. Brush up on the reading skills there, buddy. **Minty** said that, not me. Sua ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667/46 "2002-10-04T20:54:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElJeffe \* > The Democratic candidate decided to yank his name - that should be his problem, not ours. Nevertheless, it **is** our problem, or at least the problem of the voters of NJ. You just want to punish the voters for Torrecelli’s bad form, and I don’t. > [@](#): > > There’s a problem there. Democracy isn’t defined as the ability for people to pull a lever and choose a candidate. “Democracy” is “government by the people, either directly or through their representatives.” The manner of choosing those representatives, as you point out in your elected-dictator analogy, is quite crucial. Like it or not, having preprinted names on ballots is pretty damned important to elections in this country. If you think it isn’t, consider how loud you’d holler if you governor ordered the removal of all Republican names from the ballot in your state. No, I’m quite sure you recognize how imporant it is to have a name on the ballot. If you honestly thought otherwise, you wouldn’t be so strongly opposed to this substitution. And hey, by your own specious reasoning, what difference does it make if Lautenberg’s name is on there? After all, the voters can still vote for anyone they want, right? > [@](#): > > If we’re not going to follow procedure, we may was well just have the voters flip a coin. What freakin’ procedure? Show me where this supopsed procedure is for putting names on ballots. C’mon, I dare ya. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667/47 "2002-10-04T20:57:11Z")
> [@](#): > > **sua** > Actually, I have an exceedingly strong argument. Ya know how I know I have an amazingly strong arguments? Because the N.J.S.C., which is the final interpreter of N.J. law, agrees with me. And if they agree with me, the issue is closed, and I am dead-on accurate. I kind of agree with this. I do not expect the SCOTUS to overrule. All a lawyer can do is to accept the decision, as you say. However, a citizen who thinks the NJ Court acted corruptly or improperly can use that information in deciding how to vote. The liberal _NY Newsday_ blasted the decision in an editorial today, which is their prerogative. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## And, yet you pointed out that a court can and has declared an election void and called a new election. > > Brush up on the reading skills there, buddy. Minty said that, not me. Sorry for the error of attribution. Anyhow, [here’s](http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/metro/election2002/1004mckinney.html) an incredible suit by some plaintiffs who want two elections overturned. I’m sure this suit will go nowhere, but even the filing of it makes me nervous. The legal battle in Florida in 2000, as well as the actions of that corrupt Democratic judge in Missouri, have set us on a slippery slope in the direction of having elections determined or impacted by judges. ☹ BTW, we will have to simply disagree on the meaning of the 51-day law. ---
**Author:** ![Toaster52](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/50afbb/32.png) [@Toaster52](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Toaster52)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667/48 "2002-10-04T21:18:08Z")
**Sua, Minty** , well, see…that’s what the argument is all about. The Republicans say that Toricelli can’t withdraw after the 51 days before the election because it is a legally mandated deadline, while the Democrats say that there is no legally mandated deadline and they can substitute candidates at any time. …take YOUR fingers out, Minty… I’m gone from work now for the weekend, but I hope to stop back in from home. This is an extremely interesting (and for me, since I now live in NJ, important debate going on,with lots of intriguing points made on both sides) See y’all in th’ trenches!!! ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667/49 "2002-10-04T21:51:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Toaster52 \* > **Sua, Minty** , well, see…that’s what the argument is all about. The Republicans say that Toricelli can’t withdraw after the 51 days before the election because it is a legally mandated deadline, while the Democrats say that there is no legally mandated deadline and they can substitute candidates at any time. But, you see, _there is no argument on that point._ Anyone who’s been through more than a month of law school would, upon reading that statute, recognize that there is no legally-mandated deadline in the statute. And to the extent that the GOP is trying to assert that that is the issue, they are either lying or utterly ignoring their attorneys. (And if their attorneys made that argument to the N.J. Supremes, they lost before they even walked in the door). This isn’t a partisan issue. The result would be the same if the N.J. legislature had passed a statute that set up a procedure to change your child’s name within the first 30 days after birth. Such a statute does not mean that you may not change your child’s name six months after the child was born. IOW, for a lawyer, there is no debate on the issue. And that’s why **minty** and I are getting a bit pissy. This is very straightforward stuff, and for talking heads, editorial writers, and GOP hacks to claim that it ain’t straightforward means either that they aren’t doing their homework or they are trying to deceive. Those are really the only two options. Now, there is a legitimate legal argument as to the election mechanics were such that a change was practicable at this late date. And if you want to debate that, fine - though it probably wouldn’t be a “great” debate; that all depends on the resources and efficiency of N.J. county clerks, and MEGO just thinking about it. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667/50 "2002-10-04T22:10:01Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. Since, after all, the names on ballot could be anything – a good pizza joint, the guy the city park was named after, for-a-good-time-call – and have no connection whatsoever to candidates. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667/51 "2002-10-04T22:18:14Z")
> [@](#): > > millions of New Jersey citizens who have a substantial and compelling interest in receiving ballots that properly reflect the candidates for office. Ballots, by nature, do not reflect “the candidates for office”. They reflect the candidates **who have been qualified to be listed on the ballot in accordance with the established rules**. There are legitimate reasons to challenge the established rules (e.g. special fixes to favor duopoly candidates over third-party candidates). The fact that one candidate is dropping like a paralyzed falcon in the polls doesn’t qualify. ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667/52 "2002-10-04T22:19:20Z")
What’s the matter with you people? Can anyone make one single cogent point **without** adopting this smarmy I’m-so-much-better-than-you attitude? How can there be any sort of great debate when all people are doing is trying to out-do the other person? That’s not a debate. Soon after I made my last post, I left work early - think I’m getting the flu. But I will say this much. Owing to the arguments I’ve read here, I’ll concede much of what I was saying earlier. I’m not sure I like the ruling, but at least it’s not based on fiction. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667/53 "2002-10-04T22:20:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Oh, wait, you may be arguing that only the Republicans and the loony parties should have their Senate candidates’ names on the ballot, aren’t you? If the Republicans and the third parties (applying my handy Partisan Shrieks --\> Rational Discourse filter) are the only ones who got their candidate listed in accordance with the established rules, then, yes, that is precisely the proper result. ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667/54 "2002-10-04T22:25:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Nevertheless, it is our problem, or at least the problem of the voters of NJ. You just want to punish the voters for Torrecelli’s bad form, and I don’t. That raises an interesting question. What _do_ the voters in NJ think of all this? Is it just a predictable party-line division? Do they care? Bottom line, though, there are - or if there aren’t, there _should_ be - rules and guidelines laid out to try to create as fair a campaigning atmosphere as possible. The scenario I spelled out - which you conveniently ignored, because I assume it wasn’t something that could be easily demonized as Republican partisanship - is one of many unfair situations that may arise as a result of late-term candidate swapping. In the Torricelli case in particular, I’m skeptical that the tiny amount of campaigning that will go on between the remaining Republican and Democratic candidates will result in - to put it simply - a fair fight. But I am even _more_ concerned about the precedent set by this, because it can result in the future in what will _obviously_ not be a fair fight, one example of which I already mentioned. You’re, of course, more than welcome to ignore this point, and continue arguing about the details of whose name goes on what ballot, but the issue to me transcends ballot, and goes to the heart of the election process. Basically, I think this is a crappy precedent to set, and that the SCONJ should’ve forseen this - if they were really that concerned about the “intent” of the law, and the good of the voters, and all, as they seemed to claim - and erred on the safe side by disallowing the swap. If it really bothered the legislature, they could’ve specified explicit rules for later elections to handle this sort of thing. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## If we’re not going to follow procedure, we may was well just have the voters flip a coin. > > What freakin’ procedure? Show me where this supopsed procedure is for putting names on ballots. C’mon, I dare ya. Well, there isn’t one. That was kind of my point. Or weren’t you paying attention? _tap tap tap_ Is this thing on? Jeff ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667/55 "2002-10-04T22:26:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by aahala \* > \*\*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. \*\* Just a little extra information about this… I was campaigning at the polling place for my friend Adam Shahid’s unsuccessful state legislature run (the requisite 100 feet from the door to the polling places) and saw how the Dems handled this situation at the polls. A guy stood right next to me at the driveway (luckily, the 100ft was just about right for the turn-off to the church where the polls were at) with a sign that said “to put Jean Carnahan into the Senate, vote for MEL CARNAHAN, write-in votes will not be accepted.” There were also some hastily printed “I’m STILL with Mel” bumper stickers printed up and handed out to reinforce that. So they found a way to get around the fact that Jean’s name wasn’t on the ballot, and they won anyways. That said, I can see how it may have been a special case. Yet it does show that they were able to deal with the confusion of the situation. Of course, they had a legitimate, non-political, tragic reason for having to do what they did. This guy in NJ has no more reason than pure politics, but he got a court to magically hand-wave the number 48 into the number 36 for the convenience of his party. Those of us Missourians who will be supporting Jean this fall should have little sympathy for all involved in this NJ fiasco. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667/56 "2002-10-04T22:32:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Steve MB \* > If the Republicans and the third parties . . . are the only ones who got their candidate listed in accordance with the established rules, then, yes, that is precisely the proper result. Oh great, that must mean you’ve found the “established rules” everyone keeps referring to. I eagerly await your posting of those rules. You _are_ going to post them, right? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667/57 "2002-10-04T22:39:08Z")
**ElJeffe** , you’re quite wrong that there isn’t a procedure. In fact, the NJSC simply reaffirmed procedure established by the courts (and never altered by the legislature in the half century since) than when your candidate is no longer a candidate, you petition the courts to get your new guy on the ballot. Simple as that. And I ignored your hypothetical because I think it’s facially ridiculous to argue that candidates need to stay candidates so that their opponents’ negative ads are money well spent. As for what the New Jersey voters think, I guess we’ll find out in a month, right? ---
**Author:** ![IndependentVoter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e9a140/32.png) [@IndependentVoter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IndependentVoter)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667/58 "2002-10-04T22:43:08Z")
Slightly off the topic, but sort-of relevant… If the new campaign finance law was in effect this election, then any new replacement candidate in a similiar situation would be protected from facing any criticism from lobby groups. It’s not a point to be considered one way or the other here, but it highlights possible future problems with CFR. …Just a thought. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667/59 "2002-10-04T22:46:49Z")
My recollection of that statute is that special interest groups are prohibited from running ads about candidates in the last days of a campaign, but are still permitted to run issue ads and otherwise get the message out. Not quite the same as you portrayed it, but either way it’s going to get shot down as unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![aahala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e4f/32.png) [@aahala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aahala)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667/60 "2002-10-04T23:35:21Z")
As a non-lawyer, I think Minty and Sua is right. There is only a prodecure to remove prior to 50-51 days, but not a prohibition(or procedure) thereafter. I take it the Republicans are basing their legal claim on that law. I think they should have based it on someelse, like some of the arguments in this thread - basic equity, fairness etc. Now, what is the view of those who think there is a prohibition, if both candidates die after the 51 day limit? Will voters have to decide between two corpses? That would be stupid, IMO. Besides, the Democratic party is not, on their own, replacing the name with another, they are ASKING the court for permission to do so. So its now the 12 supremes that will decide. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-hawai-and-new-jersey/130667.md?page=4)