I apologize for the lack of knowledge; all I know is what I’ve read in the paper: to wit, that Torricelli has bowed out of his Senate race, and New Jersey Democrats are seeking to replace his name on the ballot. The law in New Jersey apparently says that changes cannot be made within 51 days of the election. As we’re 34 days away now, it would seem that the issue is a done deal: they can’t.
However, the Democrats are apparently planning to ask the courts to permit them to make the change. I’m not sure what the rationale is, and I’m not sure why they feel they should be permitted to do so.
But Torricelli’s claimed reason was that he was trailing badly in his race, and didn’t want to be responsible for the Democratic loss of the Senate. If he withdraws with no way to replace his name, it’s a guaranteed loss. So I imagine that his action was taken with at least some expectation that the party would be permitted to swap names.
But why? Can someone with an insight to New Jersey law answer this?
New Jersey judges are reputed to be of two types: partisan hacks and flat out crooks. One might guess that the Democrats hope to get their case heard by one of the former.
I heard Republicans complaining on the radio that the Dem’s are trying to bypass the law by petitioning the NJ Supreme Court, and are using it as an example of unethical political practices. Well, they are trying to bypass the law but that doesn’t mean they’ll be successful. It also doesn’t mean they’re unethical.
It will be unethical if the Supremes say no and the Dem’s ignore the decision and put a name on the ballot anyway. It will also be illegal. (I’m a Democrat and if I was on the court I would say it’s too late for a change.)
IMO, if the Senator in question was a GOP’er I have little doubt that the Pubs would try the same thing.
I heard Republicans complaining on the radio that the Dem’s are trying to bypass the law by petitioning the NJ Supreme Court, and are using it as an example of unethical political practices. Well, they are trying to bypass the law but that doesn’t mean they’ll be successful. It also doesn’t mean they’re unethical.
It would be unethical if the Supremes say no and the Dem’s ignore the decision and put a name on the ballot anyway. (Not that they could, of course.) It would also be illegal. (I’m a Democrat and if I was on the court I would say it’s too late for a change.)
IMO, if the Senator in question was a GOP’er I have little doubt that the Pubs would try the same thing.
BTW, here’s an amusing thought. Suppose a NJ judge re-writes NJ law to permit a replacement candidate, and this judge is upheld by the NJ supremes. What we learned in 2000 is that the SCOTUS has the power to overrule the state, since thw suit deals with a federal office. If we’re we’re lucky, we could see a re-run of Gore v. Bush. That would be exciting.
“If we’re we’re lucky, we could see a re-run of Gore v. Bush. That would be exciting.”
It would be especially “exciting” if the control of the Sentate rests on this contest as seems quite possible. That would mean that SCOTUS ,more or less, decided who controlled the excecutive branch in 2000 and will decide who controls (part of) the legislative branch in 2002.
What I can’t understand is why the New Jersey Dems didn’t find someone else for this race. After all this scandal has been in the news for ages and there was talk about Torricelli’s possible resignation way back last summer.
Whatever the reason it could easily end up costing the Dems the Senate.
Well, the Democrats are going directly to the Supreme Court. (They’re not rewriting the law, btw. They’re just asking that, in this case, the deadline requirements in the law would be waived.)
I assume that the Supreme Court of New Jersey is not being asked for a waiver, but is being asked to rule that the time limit in question violates the New Jersey constitution.
Not neccesarily. For example, I work in a telecommunications law firm, and our clients, who hold FCC licenses, are required by law and federal rule, to file certain things with the FCC at certain times. However, sometimes our clients file requests for waiver of a deadline with the FCC, saying, in effect, “We understand that the rule says we have to do this by a deadline, but there are unique and extraordinary reasons that the rule shouldn’t apply in this case, and the public interest would be served by waiving the rule.”
I expect that’s what the New Jersey Democratic party is asking the court to do. I don’t imagine they want the court to get rid of the deadline entirely, but they feel they have a compelling reason that the deadline shouldn’t apply in this unique case. Of course, with no access to their brief, I have no idea what that reason is.
Captain Amazing, I withdraw my smiley. Your idea of a waiver, rather than an overrule, is not silly.
Let’s assume that a majority of the NJ SC is determined to let the Dems run a candidate. As a practical matter, they have the power to do so. (unless SCOTUS gets involved, which I consider unlikely.)
Anyway, if they want that result, how would they choose to justify it? [ol][li]Waiver. After all, if the candidate died or became disabled, could the party to put in a replacement? (However, apparently the answer is no in the case of the late Patsy Mink.) It’s hard to grant a waiver without throwing out the law. What would happen the next time either party wanted to switch candidates? Also, is the NJ Supreme Court empowered to grant waivers? I don’t think so.[]Unconstitutional. This seems like a stretch, as there are time limits for everything. []Gobbledegook. Some vague discussion of penumbras, etc. [/ol]I think they’ll go with #3.[/li]
Note that the Dems haven’t lost anything even if the NJ court doesn’t go along with them. Toricelli was toast, anyhow. In fact, his sleezy candidacy may have been harming other Dems, to some slight degree. The Dems are better off with NO Senate candidate than with the Torch.
Governor appoints Joe Democrat to fulfill unexpired term.
Governor calls for a special election for the unexpired Senate term, as he is authorized to do. See U.S. Const. amend. XVII and the statute you quoted above
Since it’s a special election, Joe Democrat is not subject to the 51/48-day deadline that applies to general elections.
Governor appoints Joe Democrat to fulfill unexpired term.
Governor calls for a special election for the unexpired Senate term, as he is authorized to do. See U.S. Const. amend. XVII and the statute you quoted above
Since it’s a special election, Joe Democrat is not subject to the 51/48-day deadline that applies to general elections.