Yeah, so Howard Kurtz is also spreading The Big Fat Republican Lie. The statute is long (and Findlaw is working again), but what it applies to is stated quite clearly in the first sentence:
It says nothing at all about placing names on ballots, and it is likewise silent on how or whether to select a candidate 51 or fewer days before the general election.
But oh! quoth the 'Pubbies. That means there can’t be a new candidate after 51 days. Gotcha ya!
To which I reply, nonsense. Oh sure, that’s one reasonable way to resolve the latent ambiguity in the statute. But the statute does not say that a vacancy cannot be filled after the 51st day, and it’s also reasonable to read the statute as establishing detailed procedures for when there’s still plenty of time to put them into action, and leaving it up to the parties to figure it out when time is of the essence–particularly given the state’s strong policy in favor of enabling public participation in the electoral process. And don’t forget, it’s been 50 years since the NJ courts established that statute still permits substuituted candidates, and the NJ Legsilature has not done anything at all to change the law on that matter.
Perhaps you’re not familiar with Mr. Kurtz. Or is everyone who ever disagrees with you a Republican? Pretty shallow attitude, if true.
There is still no conceivable reason why his name should be replaced other than the fact that he was losing the race. And sorry, but that’s a bullshit reason.
Secondly, ballots have gone out. If I was one of the few who had actually turned in an absentee ballot, I’d be enraged at this obvious attempt to steal an election. People have already voted on this. This means it is too late to switch stuff around.
You’re willing to trample their voting rights simply so the Democrats can cover up their own massive blunder? Hogwash.
Now, if Torricelli had left the race before any absentee ballots had been returned, I would agree with you, albeit begrudgingly. But ballots have been returned; therefore the process has already begun.
I detest early-voting laws anyway, so I can’t sympathize with you at all on that point. People who vote in September take the risk that their candidate will die, resign, or reveal himself to be an anti-Semite controlled by a one-eyed, eight-tentacled space alien. As far as I’m concerned, they’ve trampled their own voting rights. And of course, it appears that those early voters will be able to cast new ballots anyway. Sorry, I’m not going to endorse a course of action that denies proper ballots to millions of voters for the sake of a tiny handful of early voters.
And that, of course is the “conceivable reason” for replacing Torricelli that you keep denying exists: The right of the voters to have a ballot that accurately reflects the candidates for political office. You focus on Torricelli, decide he’s a jerk, and punish the voters. I focuse on the voters, concede that Torricelli is a jerk, and give the voters accurate ballots.
Of course, that’s all policy. Are you now willing to concede that the NJSC ruling is proper–not necesarily correct, but proper–under NJ law?
People don’t know how to read statutes. To read a statute, one must begin with a legal fiction - that legislatures know what they are doing.
dantheman, there is no deadline in the statute. Here’s the pertinent language:
N.J.S.A. 19:13-20.
The statute then goes on to say that:
(emphasis added.)
In this statute, the New Jersey legislature set out the procedure that shall be followed if a vacancy occurs in a ballot more than 51 days prior to the general election. That’s all the statute does.
What the statute does not do is address in any way is what should occur if a vacancy occurs less than 51 days prior to the general election. The New Jersey legislature left that matter open.
A court should not read into a statute that which the legislature chose not to write into it. The court must recognize that the legislature had the ability to add to the statute the sentence “candidates may not be selected to fill vacancies that occur less than 51 days prior to a general election,” and chose not to do so.
Not only does the above accord with statutory rules of construction, it makes common sense. The legislature recognized that more than 50 days prior to an election, filling a vacancy would not cause anyone any problems under any foreseeable circumstanceds, so it set up the procedures to do so. OTOH, vacancies that occur after that date may indeed cause problems, particularly in terms of the mechanics of balloting, and whether they will actually cause problems in an individual case depends upon the circumstances - i.e. an individual assessment is necessary. Therefore, the New Jersey legislature decided not to speak to the issue and establish a blanket rule, instead leaving the matter to the New Jersey courts to decide the individual merits - which is what happened here.
Sounds like a bunch of idiots at that radio station.
In order to replace Lautenberg, the Democrats would need permission from a New Jersey court. And it wouldn’t be granted.
Look out, Toaster!! There’s a man on that grassy knoll, and he’s pointing a gun at you!!
Let’s look at the scenario you propose:
August 2002. The Torch is dropping like a rock in the polls, and the Democrats consider replacing him. If they act at this time, the above statue sets out the procedures for doing so, and therefore make it crystal clear that the Torch can be replaced without any risk that the Democrats would be left with no candidate on the ballot;
But no! The Democrats decide that it would be better to wait until after the 51st day passes and then try to replace the Torch. The Democrats reason that, if they wait, the GOP will attempt to block the replacement, and the Democrats will be able to claim that the GOP is attempting to disenfranchise voters;
Of course, in order to pull of this brilliant political manuver, the Democrats would have to leave to the discretion of a judge whether or not they could have a candidate on the ballot at all.
So, you are saying that the Democrats decided it would be better to risk not having a candidate on the November ballot at all - and therefore pretty much guarantee that the Senate would return to GOP hands - just so they could have another campaign issue, instead of acting 17 days earlier and avoided that risk, but not had a campaign issue.
This is the problem with conspiracy theories - they defy logic.
I didn’t decide he was a jerk - he did. And if he had left himself on the ballot in the first place (not resigning from the race), then there’d be no issue at all.
Now, if you don’t like the early-voting laws, that’s fine - and understandable - but you can’t be adamant about the letter of the law in only some parts. These people aren’t trampling their own rights - the rights are granted to them by these specific laws, and they are utilizing them. I guess those early-voting laws were set up so that people who were definitely going to be out of the state at the time of the election but were indeed residents of that state could still vote. These laws preserve the rights of these people to vote, even if they’re not there in person (especially military personnel stationed overseas).
I don’t like the statute, but if that’s what it says, then I guess the ruling is correct, as much as I think it’s the wrong thing to do. Think of it! Any candidate in NJ can simply drop out at the last possible moment to be replaced by someone who is felt by the party to have a better shot. What of the campaign up to that point? Candidate A has been campaigning to get himself on there; now the voters have to see Candidate B on the ballot.
And Sua,
Personally, I see no conspiracy. I see incredible arrogance and stupidity. For their own sake, they should have asked him to quit a while ago - that way, their “new” candidate could at least try to engender support among those who were dead-set against voting for Torricelli.
Now, however, there might be people who are so pissed at the whole thing - not fully understanding it all, just knowing that in their minds Torch was an ass - that they don’t want to vote Democrat anyway. If Lautenberg had had more time, he might have swayed people.
Why is that a bullshit reason? This isn’t a game. This is about who the voters of New Jersey wish to have represent them in the U.S. Senate. What difference does it make why a candidate withdraws? The issue is whether the voters have a choice.
As Sua has ably (and patiently) explained, it is highly unlikely that a candidate could “simply drop out at the last possible moment to be replaced by someone who is felt by the party to have a better shot.” Gotta get judicial approval and all that, and this case–more than a month before the election–is hardly “the last possible second.”
Incidentally, I think you’re confusing early voting laws with for-cause absentee voting laws. I have no problem with the latter, only the former. Moreover, even if I liked early voting laws, the analysis would be the same: I would not permit a tiny handful of early voters who have already cast their incorrect ballots to trump the millions of New Jersey citizens who have a substantial and compelling interest in receiving ballots that properly reflect the candidates for office.
Minty, a minor point whist I peruse the stautes involved:
By your own words: “…the latent ambiguity in the statute.”
Ambiguity…meaning there is at least a possibility that more than one meaning can be construed. So pray tell me, why is it that when the “Pubbies” take a different viewpoint from you, that makes them purveyors of lies?
"I see you’ve decided to join The Big Fat Republican Lie too, eh Toaster52? "
“Yeah, so Howard Kurtz is also spreading The Big Fat Republican Lie”
This is one reason that I am so fed up with the Democrats. They seem to hold, IMHO, the viewpoint, nay the almost religious conviction, that their side just cannot possibly be wrong. On any issue…for any reason. And if anyone dare to speak a different opinion, why then they must (by definition) be liars.
Disagree with the Other Side if you will, but at least wait until they actually lie before calling them liars.
ducking man with gun SuaSponte…nothing like a good conspiracy theory, huh? The best thing about them is that one can make any argument one wants…if someone disagrees, then they must (gasp) be part of the conspiracy!!!
I agree with dantheman. I don’t really see a conspiracy here (besides, doncha know that the only real conspiracy is the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy {trademark logo}). I do see some real arrogance going on here, though. I mean, come on… with all the huge baggage that Toricelli has, anyone should have known that his chances for re-election were marginal at best. So why wait until this late date? (As compared to how long Toricelli has been fighting the charges against him…late date/last minute being a matter of semantics here.)
And lest it be said otherwise…I’m a dedicated fence-sitter, who has voted both Democratic and Republican, depending on who I thought was the better person at that time.
Because they’re lying when they say that the statute is about putting names on the ballot. It does no such thing. The only potential ambiguity is how or whether the statute allows parties to name candidates after the 51 day deadline.
Naming candidates != placing candidates’ names on ballots
So, with this case as a new precedent, how close to the election, and for what reasons, will the SC ever deny a party the right to candidate-swap? The only reason the Torricelli stepped down is because he was going to lose. Nobody’s even denying that. The argument about “lack of voter choice” is blatantly bogus, because there were several other options on the ballot. There was no reason why another candidate needed to be added to the roster, and no compelling reason why it was even preferable. New Jersey now has established that any candidate can, for any reason they choose, remove their name and have someone else step in instead, and that there is no deadline past which this cannot be done. Isn’t that kind of a dangerous precedent to set? Especially based on language that, as even minty has admitted, at least can be interpreted as disallowing switches after the 51-day mark?
And btw, this isn’t about accurate ballots, minty. If that’s all it was, then they would just rewrite the ballots without Torricelli’s name, no fuss, no muss. It also in no way has anything to do with the well-being of the voters. If the voters really want somebody else that badly, all they have to do is write his name in.
I’m cool with completely blank ballots. Somehow, though, I think the R’s would complain about that result. Besides, NJ law clearly provides for the names of qualifying candidates to be printed on ballots, so I think that solution is pretty much a non-starter.
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.
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?
You are right about “real arrogance,” but that real arrogance was on the part of the Torch, not the Democratic Party. You do realize, don’t you, that the New Jersey Democratic Party could not replace the Torch on the ballot until the Torch decided to withdraw? Given his personality, and applying Occam’s Razor, isn’t the simpler and more defensible explanation that the Torch thought he was going to turn it around and no one could convince him to step aside until this “late date”?
In any event, while the Torch has been fighting off these charges for years, it hasn’t affected his standing with the voters until recently. If you look at the polls from around, oh say 51 days before the general election ;), the Torch still had a fighting chance, and some polls favored him to win. If you recall - and read yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, which had an article on this subject, the Conventional Wisdom was that the Senate Ethics Committee’s Letter of Admonishment was a mere slap on the wrist, and was not expected to affect the Torch’s chances for re-election.
No, I’m not calling your theory a conspiracy theory to denigrate it, but simply because it is a theory alleging a very far-fetched conspiracy - to wit, that the Democrats would conspire to delay the Torch’s withdrawal, and risk having no candidate on the ballot in November, just in order to create a campaign issue that may or may not resonate with the New Jersey voters.
Here’s my non-lawyer’s counter-argument. Feel free to explain all my errors.[ol][li]Although your point does follow the rules of logic, common sense would read the 51 day or greater permission to also be a 51 day limit. Arguably, the Legislature did deal with vacancies that occur fewer than 51 days before election – by providing no mechanism to put a new candidate on the ballot; therefore under their laws, it can’t be done. [/li]
Similarly, the legislature provided no legal mechanism to undo an election after the fact, because the wrong party won. That doesn’t mean that the SC can make a rule invalidating an election and calling a new one with a replacement candidate.[li]Even if it is intended that an ad hoc rule be propounded, nowhere is it written that the SC is the body to do that. AFAIK there is no NJ Constitutional or statutory authority for the NJ SC to devise their own election procedures, when there’s a gap to be filled. Why couldn’t the legal gap be filled equally well by the governor, some legislative committee, or the state election commission. [/li]
To a lawyer, it may seem natural that a court fill in any gap; to me, it seems preferable that the gap be filled in by the actuarial society :)[li]The US Constitution specifically states that the state legislature makes the election laws, so the state SC is prohibited from making election laws. It would be different if their decision were an (alleged) interpretation, rather than an (alleged) filling in of an open matter.[/ol]Incidentally, one of my pet peeves is the SC’s blithe assumption that enough time is left to conduct a fair election. I tried to get an absentee ballot last election, and there was quite a screw-up. I was told that voters filing for absentee ballots hadn’t always gotten them on time. As a result, I gave up. Fortunately, my trip was cancelled, and I was able to vote in person.[/li]
Anyhow, it peeves me when some judge or debater simply claims that 30 days or whatever is “enough time,” without knowledge of how well the absentee ballot system is working, what the constraints are, etc. If some all-powerful, judge, without checking, nevertheless ruled that your firm could complete 51 days of work in the next 29 days, you’d be peeved, and rightly so.
Note also that the absentee ballots and military ballots tend to be strongly Republican. To the degree that these get more screwed up, it helps the Democrats.
51 days.
Re: Voter Choice
It seems to me that us voters here in NJ do not have any less choices with Torrecelli out of the race. The guy dropped out because his chance of winning were slim to none and dropping each and every day.
So since the Torch had basically lost already, all he was doing was conceding an election where voting had already started.
It’s not that Democrats didn’t have a choice, it’s just that their choice has already lost. (much like all the thrid party candidates -BTW)
Glad to see you conceding the logic of the position. But personally, I would think common sense would tell you that when the legislature hasn’t said anything about a subject, it hasn’t resolved that subject.
Arguably, sure. But not inarguably. The NJ lege left it open, and the court resolved it in accordance with long-standing public policy and legal precedent.
Your example is a strawman, in that nobody has even remotely suggested setting aside a valid election after the fact. But it’s quite well established that courts may set aside elections for reasons such as voter fraud. You may recall the federal court that ordered a new election for mayor of Miami five or so years ago.
Courts apply the law to the facts, and sometimes that means they get to decide what the law means even when it’s less than clear. Happens all the time. See Marbury.
So sayeth Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas. No sayeth everybody else on the Supreme Court. Try a new argument–one taht hasn’t already been rejected.
ummmm…from a legal standpoint (at least as I understand it), naming a candidate IS placing a candidate’s name on the ballot. I mean, you can name a person as your party’s candidate in aback room and nothing happens…name a person as your candidate in public, that person IS your candidate and as such is the person’s name that goes on the ballot…
(doncha just love how people can argue semantics…)
When a party names a candidate, that is what is meant: “Here’s the name of the person that we want put on the ballot.” Same fucking thing.
And by the way, Sua, the voters of New Jersey should still have a choice…between Forrester and Toricelli. If Toricelli is too chicken to run…and withdraws after the legally mandated deadline, then the race essentially should be uncontested (“That’s it, I give up!!!”)(and uncontested races are legal and happen all the time). What the Democrats would have to do is then explain to their supporters why they don’t have someone running against Forrester. (“Well, gee whiz, our guy wasn’t doing to good, you see, and ummmm…”)
Toaster, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that . . .
<wait for it>
THERE IS NO “LEGALLY MANDATED DEADLINE.”
Continued assertions to the contrary, without even attempting to demonstrate otherwise, are really pretty lame. Take yer fingers outta yer ears, son, and listen to what we’re showin’ ya.
As for this point:
You are mistaken, I’m afraid. In fact, there are established criteria for getting a candidate’s name on the ballot, in New Jersey and elsewhere. The NJ statute provides that the candidate of a political party is automatically on the ballot if (big if) that party drew 10% or more of the statewide vote in the previous general election for state representatives. Thus, as a practical matter, the candidates of the Democrats and the Republicans will always be on the New Jersey ballot.
If a candidate does not come from a party that drew 10% or more of the vote last time, the candidate may be still obtain a place on the ballot by collecting a sufficient number of signatures of registered voters. I’m not sure how many signatures it takes, but it’s not a huge number if you look at all the kooks who end up on the ballot each year. That’s also how the Greens and the Libertarians get on the ballot, since they have more than a few adherents but little broad support.
Thus, getting nominated is not the same thing as getting on the ballot. There are criteria to be met, and those criteria have nothing to do with the provisions of N.J. Stat. 18:13-20.
Where I come from, logic and common sense come to the same result. 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.
Nope. As a general rule of American law, that which is not prohibited is allowed. We assume that, if the law does not speak to particular conduct, the legislature did not intend to prohibit the conduct. This is part and parcel with the American legal and political philosophy of minimal government, freedoms and all that stuff.
Undoing an election result bears no similarities with changing the name of a candidate. While this is self-evident to those with forebrains, 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.
::sigh:: Fighting ignorance never ends.
Time for small words. In America, we live under a common-law system. Under the common law, unlike the civil law system, the purposes of the judiciary is to “fill the interstices” between statutes. That is, when the legislature does not speak to an issue that becomes the source of litigation, the courts, based upon precedent (in this case more than 50 years of it), apply common-law principles to determine what the law is in the absence of legislative guidance.
While you may wish actuaries to make legal decisions, the U.S. Constitution calls for the judiciary to make such decisions.
First of all, under the common-law system, where a legislature does not speak to an issue, it is assumed that the legislative intent is for the judiciary to fill in the interstices. Indeed, this is often a criticism of legislatures - that they remain silent on an issue because to speak would risk unpopularity, so they leave it to the judges.
So yes, the Jersey legislature “made the law,” by assigning certain issues to the Courts.
In any event your POV would mean that Lautenberg couldn’t be on the ballot, even though the legislature never prohibited a late substitution. So you would have a result that was not determined by the New Jersey legislature. How is your result any more constitutional than my result?
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.
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.
