Oh shit! Did Bush pack the court?!?
[sub]It’s only nine Supreme Court justices.[/sub]
There are two possibilities. Either One of the dead guys gets elected and the governor appoints a 2 year replacement, or the voters elect a third party candidate.
In times like these, I am pretty damn sure the third party guy would caucus with one of the parties since every vote counts right now.
Minty Green
If I’m not mistaken, the “last days” of the election start at 60 days away. While I’m hoping that CFR gets struck down, I was just pointing out another flaw in it.
Suasponte
Here is a little confirmation that people had already voted:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/05/elec02.nj.s.torricelli.scotus/
At this point I don’t think it should matter. It is my opinion that the SCONJ provided cover for the Democrats in an attempt to save the Senate, but I don’t think more court hearings are going to help this issue. IMHO part of the trauma of the Florida problem was how the situation flip-flopped back and forth while constantly raising and smashing everybody’s hopes.
If what just happened bothers enough of us in NJ, then the situation will be self-correcting. If Lautenberg gets crushed, then I doubt this strategy will be used again any time soon.
However, I just wanted to clarify that voting HAD already started, in pretty much every sense of the term.
What, they can bring a lawsuit, but they’re incapable of casting new ballots? Some claims are just too stoopid to withstand even the slightest contemplation.
You know, it’s threads like these that make me hate politics.
Guys, this isn’t a political debate. It may seem like one, but it isn’t. It’s a legal debate about a political situation. Big difference.
To prove this to you, I want you to determine how, ideally, you want this situation to be resolved. Now imagine that this had happened to a Republican. Now imagine that this had happened to a 3rd party candidate.
Was there any change in how you’d have wanted those two scenarios to play out? There damn well shouldn’t have been. The law is the law is the law and it should be interpreted fairly and applied equally.
If the Democrats get to put another person on the ballot, then that’s fine. If they don’t, tough shit. There’s no guarantee in any state or federal Constitution that the party of your choice will show up on the ballot.
SuaSponte and minty green: I understand that you are two different people, but you seem to be making identical arguments, so I am going to intersperse your quotes here. If you disagree with each other on one of the following points, do please let me know…
I assume you mean “particular conduct” on the part of private citizens. If you mean “particular conduct” of the government…well, that is another Great Debate indeed. Certainly the idea that the government can do anything it is not specifically prohibited from doing by law is not “part and parcel with the American legal and political philosophy of minimal government…”
I agree that the situation in NJ is a bit of a grey area. However:
And then you said:
Why would they need permission from the court? Why did they need to be in court at all, except to defend themselves against the Republican lawsuit? And why, for that matter, was the lawsuit not simply tossed out of court on the basis of this principle that they are allowed to do anything they want that is not specifically prohibited by law?
And why, for that matter, can’t the parties put a new name on the ballot when their candidate is behind at the polls, at any time right up until the morning of the election, under this principle that they can do whatever they want if it isn’t specifically prohibited by law. Neither of you have articulated a moral or legal rationale for such a rule, never mind articulating how an exception to such a rule should be made in the case we are discussing.
Because they sued for an order requiring the [supervisor of elections? secretary of state? not sure] to place Lautenberg’s name on the ballot. The official(s) they sued either refused to make the change on their own or (more likely) refused to make the change without permission of the court. You don’t get to print your own ballots in America, ya know.
You do, however, get to nominate anybody you want for political office. Try to keep that distinction in mind. Sua’s comments on doing-that-which-is-not-forbidden go to the choice of a candidate, not the printing and distribution of ballots. Ballots are somebody else’s duty.
Because you can’t print and distribute ballots in time for the election.
Hell yes, I have. I have repeatedly and consistently urged that the voters of New Jersey are entitled to a ballot that accurately and fully represents the state’s candidates for political office. I don’t give a damn why Torrecelli is no longer the candidate. Fact is, the butthead is gone, the Democratic party has a different candidate, and that candidate should, in the absence of ballot printing and/or distribution barriers that would prevent the voters from receiving ballots that properly reflect the other candidates, be on that ballot.
It’s called democracy, and I’m rather fond of it.
Minty "What fucking deadline? Read the statute.
OK…and here it is: New Jersey Permanent Statutes, Title 19 (Elections), Section 19: 13-20…
“In the event of a vacancy, howsoever caused, among candidates nominated at primaries, which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election, or in the event of inability to select a candidate because of a tie vote at such primary, a candidate shall be selected in the following manner:”
to repeat: *among candidates nominated at primaries *
Gee, was Lautenberg nominated at the Democratic primaries? Actually, I’m not sure right now…I’ll have to check; but I don’t think so. But Minty, THESE are the “established rules” that I think you want to see so badly. You nominate a candidate, he or she runs against other nominated candidates, wins the party primary, and THEN gets placed on the ballot.
So what happens when there is a vacancy among said candidates? In the event of a vacancy, howsoever caused,…doesn’t matter whether it is by death, incapacitating illness, or a NOMINATED candidate’s dropping out of the race…
“a candidate shall be selected in the following manner:”
Great…the statute then lists methods for selecting candidates for statewide office, county-wide, a “portion” of the state (larger than the county), etc.
But wait!!! Here’s the kicker: (pay attention now…this is what the brouhaha is all about…)
"which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election,"
To me and my pea-sized brain that seems to be very clear: the vacancy (and the attendant methods listed for selecting a candidate) cannot occur later than the 51st day before the general election.
What the Democrats are arguing is that, Gee Whiz, we no longer have a candidate, so to be fair, we have to be able to replace our NOMINATED CANDIDATE with someone else (who, by the way, was not nominated, voted on and selected by the registered Democrats of New Jersey…he was just put forth by the Democratic Party leaders…talk about disenfranchising an entire SLEW of voters!!! If I were a Dem that had voted for Toricelli, I would be storming Trenton demanding a new primary.
Wouldn’t get it, because it’s too close to the general election, so my registered vote has just been effectively nullified. Along with millions of others.)
So, Minty yes, you DO get to NOMINATE anybody you choose. But this isn’t nominating, it’s political mechanics. Fact is, the duly nominated and duly voted-on Democratic representative (the guy the Democrats chose to represent themselves)…
…quit.
And now the Democrats are crying that they need to have a candidate to represent them. Guess what, idiots? You HAD ONE…
…and he quit.
I am rather fond of democracy also. Among other attributes, it has a system of laws that people are required to adhere to.
Unless, of course, you’re a Democrat.
Well then, on what grounds did the official(s) refuse? Are they not required by law to print on the ballot the name the Democratic Party submits to them? I assume that they cannot simply take the Party’s submission of the name “Robert Torricelli” and then turn around and actually print “The Butthead” (though one can daydream). And if they won’t print the name unless the court tells them to, on what grounds could the court then refuse?
You’re dodging the question here. I think it was you (or maybe Sua) who suggested that ballots could be printed overnight at Kinkos, and at least in theory, with sufficient resources, distributed that morning. But let me rephrase the question:
And why, for that matter, can’t the parties put a new name on the ballot when their candidate is behind at the polls, at any time right up until the point at which it would be physically impossible, whenever that might be, to print and distribute new ballots, under this principle that they can do whatever they want if it isn’t specifically prohibited by law.
You misunderstand me. I meant a moral or legal rationale for a rule that would in general prevent political parties from making late candidate substitutions, but which would provide for an exception in the case at hand.
Or do you actually think that what happened in NJ is a good thing, in addition to not being technically illegal? You (or Sua) stated that the NJ law is silent on substitutions made after the 51 day point. Should it be? If not, what should it say?
Well, gee, Toaster, Weird why so late with this insight? Those fools with the black robes, what are they called again, oh, yeah, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, that bunch of ignorant doofuses, unaware of the depth of your jurisprudence, have foolishly gone and decided otherwise. Even worse, they did so unanimously! I mean, they’re really gonna be embarassed when they read this!
Well, at least poor old Minty has only wasted the time spent getting a law degree, even if he does remain in woeful ignorance. Some of those guys are really old, too late for them, at least maybe poor old Minty can take up the accordian, or go into lawn mower repair. They’re held in higher esteem, anyway.
Beats me, and matters not. Fact apparently is, they did refuse. Hence lawsuit, etc.
None whatsoever under existing NJ law. Execept, of course, for the practical reason that it would be really, really stupid to do so in the vast majority of losing elections. Hell, Lauhtenberg is now prbably gonna get his ass kicked, except that the Pubbies are being stupid about the whole thing by whining instead of worrying about kicking his Johnny-come-lately butt. Thanks, Pubbies!
Oh, I can imagine all sorts of moral and legal rationales for preventing it. Maybe you should introduce such a bill next time the NJ Lege is in session? Meanwhile, up with democracy, eh?
ummmmm…Elucidator…did you actually have a point there, or did you just want to vent a little? While I’m not a lawyer and have never studied law in the formal sense, I think I do have a functioning brain. At least, my 3.8 GPA in civil engineering while in college would seem to so indicate.
There actually are a lot of good points being discussed and argued about here; maybe you could actually join us? For example: are you trying to argue that Supreme Court Justices are always infallible? Hmmm? I suppose then that the Civil Rights Act(s) were completely unnecessary, because Jim Crow laws were never put into place… Geez, Justices are human just like you and I, and can make mistakes, too. Even unanimous ones.
I did have a little epiphany (snort) while mowing the lawn this morning. Consider this:
Suppose Toricelli had chosen to drop out of the race on October 31, just a couple of days before the election. I think that evreyone would be in agreement that in a case such as that, there wouldn’t be time to select a new candidate, have him/her approved, new ballots printed & distributed (to say nothing of having that person’s viewpoints examined & debated on, etc).
Now take that idea. In order to be fair to all parties and to prevent the sort of mass chaos and confusion that shows up in elections around the world (causing “neutral” observers to watch over them)(hmmm…maybe we should have some neutral observers watch over OUR elections?), an obvious conclusion would be that there should be a date/time/deadline written into law that would basically state that beyong such-and-such a date that there could/should/would be no substitutions.
And the New Jersey Legislature said that would be 51 days before the general election. Probably somewhat arbitrary, I’m sure, but still, that was what was put into law.
Law being what law is, however, legislatures cannot legislate all possible scenarios; hence this dispute. I think both sides have valid arguments and I’m not sure how this will play out.
Gonna be fun to watch, though…
I commend you on your scholastic career. Frankly, it has been so long I don’t remember what a 3.8 means, but I will assume it is a sterling record, since you likely would not have shared that with me otherwise.
You read a statute and say “Well, this is entirely cut and dried, there simply is no ambiguity, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool or a scoundrel”
Seven members of the body entitled to an opinion and duty bound to present it, due to thier presumed expertise in the matter, unanimously declare you wrong.
But you will have none of it.
You call up the ghost of Plessy vs Ferguson to testify on your behalf, damning proof of human error. I could as well call up the stupendous dis-achievements of the Army Corps of Engineers. What of it? Its always a matter of playing to odds, of taking the best opinion at hand. Its why we educate people to be experts, so that we might have their advice.
The Supreme Court of NJ is the acknowledged and legally entitled expert in the matter of NJ law. They say, unanimously, that you are wrong. You, apparently, insist that they cannot read or that they are willfully ignoring what is obvious to the meanest intelligence.
As impressed as I am by your scholastic records, if I get busted in Dallas, I’m calling Minty. If I need some advice on shoring up my basement, I’ll call you.
Ahem, sorry if I get into this debate late, but there’s a question that keeps bugging me: what’s so terribly wrong and unfair about changing the candidates in an election, even just a week or month before the election?
Afterall, you let the people decide whom they want in the Senate, do you not? Now, the people have given a good indication that they don’t want Mr. Torricelli in the Senate – why should he run to the end just to prove that this is indeed the case? Give the people someone else, perhaps they find him a better representative, better even than Mr. Torricelli’s opponent. They are free to chose, afterall. I don’t think it says anywhere that voters HAVE to make educated, mature decisions based on the prior laying out of positions and plans; they are fairly free to elect anyone they choose because they like his tie or his selection of matching shoes for the suit – or are they not?
I look at it this way: two parties nominate candidates for an office, and it is pretty clear that one of those candidates is not going to make it. That means he hasn’t the voters’ confidence. So you pick someone to replace him; maybe that person will get the voters’ confidence, in which case, why shouldn’t they be allowed to elect him?
Now on with your regularly scheduled discussion.
** Elicudator**, actually, I would be better helping you re-do your roof than shore up your basement, but hell, gimme a call anytime you need help.
And I’M not saying everything is cut and dried, either. I read the statute (btw, a clarification to follow), and see where it says “which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election,” and see a meaning that there should be no vacancies allowed after the 51st day. Democrats see the same statute and see a different meaning: since it doesn’t specifically say anything about the 50th day, the 49th day, the 48th day, the 47th day, (etc to ad nauseum), then they can substitute their failed candidate for another.
And the clarification: the statute does say that if a substitution is to be made (BEFORE the 51st day) to cover a vacancy, then said substitution is to me made by the party leaders. Which still is a bum deal for all those Democrats who wanted Toricelli to represent them.
But this is what makes lawyers rich, the nit-picking over minute details.
“I’m sorry, Mrs. Carnahan, but your husband isn’t allowed to die so close to the election.”
::sigh:: One more time. All the New Jersey legislature had to do to make 51 days before the general election the deadline for subsitution of candidates was to add to that statute the sentence “No vacancies on the ballot may be filled later than 51 days before the election.”
They didn’t. When a legislature has the authority to enact a rule and do not, they chose not to enact that rule.
I’m not sure why you are having so much trouble with that point. If your employee handbook set out a procedure for asking to take sick days in advance, would you assume that when you woke up with a 104 degree fever, you couldn’t call in sick? I wouldn’t, unless the handbook also said, “sick leave will not be granted unless requested in advance.”
But it is cut-and-dried. The legislature could have done X, they chose not to do X. End of story.
Um actually, it’s already been played out. The interpretation of the New Jersey statute has already definitively made by the New Jersey Supreme Court.
If this case gets appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the appeal will not challenge the N.J. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the New Jersey election statute. The United States Supreme Court, under our federal system of government, has no authority to question a state supreme court’s interpretation of that state’s law.
Any appeal would have to be on grounds that the New Jersey statute violates the U.S. constitution.
It probably should be silent. Changes in technology such as high speed copiers and electronic voting have already shortened the “turn-around time” to replace a candidate on a ballot. Future technology changes will also affect the time needed, and the legislature can’t anticipate them - unless it wants to enact a new law every year. Similarly, which candidate is to be changed has an impact. Changing the candidate for mayor of a large city with a well-equipped Board of Elections may take less time than changing the candidate for dog catcher on the paper ballots of Bodunk, whose Board of Elections only has a 20 year old Xerox.
Sua
I don’t think it matters to this discusion, but I just wanted to throw in a fact I learned while listening to the court hearings last week.
All ballots in NJ are printed by professional printers. There are four seperate printers in NJ that all 21 counties use.
Nobody is out there using a Xerox copy machine to print ballots in NJ. I’m not trying to use this to sway any opinions here, it was just killing me to hear all the talk about the different boards of elections using weird methods of printing up the ballots.
Another clarification:
Even counties and towns with computer voting have pre-printed paper ballots on hand on election day.
If we may be allowed to paraphrase the statute for the legaleese-challenged, we would have something like this:
[19: 13-20] Hey guys & gals, this is what y’all should do if somebody, (a candidate who was nominated at a primary) drops off the ballot 51 days or more before the election:…
Now, look through the statute and see if you can find somethign that tells us what to do when a candidate drops off the ballot less than 51 days prior to the election.
What’s that? Can’t find anything addressing that? I guess we’ll have to let the courts decide this one.
Oh, wait a minute…