# Torricelli quits Senate race - what does NJ Law say about replacing his name? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 1, 2002, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391 "2002-10-01T13:25:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391/181 "2002-10-04T14:34:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > You bring up some good points. Again. Thank you. > [@](#): > > Your scenario about Torricelli could be correct, but I doubt it I don’t know either way, but it’s probably a combination of the two scenarios. Devil’s advocate and all that. I still haven’t seen the reports that Torricelli was pressured by Clinton, but don’t deny that that probably happened. > [@](#): > > To me it seems they are deliberately circumventing the law, and holding the electorate hostage to be allowed to do it. I’d still place the blame squarely at Torricelli for being a crook. The electorate got screwed by thier own representative. The 9% (or whatever) turnout in the Dem primary is the only thing that kept Sen T on the ballot, while the rank & file turned thier backs on him, deservedly so. WRT ballot-switching: I’m not trying to paint this as an ideal scenario – it’s a nightmare, that shouldn’t have happened. But the Dems replacing the name on the ballot isn’t so much nefarious as it will be _ineffective_. Whatever happens in court, it’s a desperate and weak strategy. > [@](#): > > I don’t think that should be allowed. I think you’re probably right. But in the end it won’t matter. Bait&Switch won’t become a viable strategy because a) it’s nuts, and b) it will be defeated soundly in NJ because i) the voters won’t stand for it and ii) Sen T.'s reputation demands it, and i) this scrambling makes the dems look silly. NJ will go to the GOP because the Dems fielded a scumbag, whatever last minute shennanigans happen in the next few days. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391/182 "2002-10-04T14:57:56Z")
BTW, I’m still interested if anyone has a cite (I’ll try to google some myself, but the search terms are broad) - WRT some previous concerns earlier in this thread about Torricelli’s campaign funds going to a different candidate: What is the ‘usual’ procedure to deal with unspent campaign funds if a candidate doesn’t run (e.g., they die)? I take it the funds go to the candidate’s party (as hard or soft money?), which seems like the only reasonable scenario, but I’ve never heard one way or the other. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391/183 "2002-10-04T15:00:23Z")
squeegee: > [@](#): > > I’d still place the blame squarely at Torricelli for being a crook I’ll go along with that. It also doesn’t matter who’s idea it was, in the final analysis it was Torricelli’s decision to quit the race, thus abandoning his supporters and throwing the FUBAR wrench into the election. Will it be effective? Probably not. Then again, it raises a lot of attention about the importance of the seat, and now I suspect this election has a decent possibility of turning based on the larger politics rather than the strengths of the candidates. We’ll just have to wait and see. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391/184 "2002-10-04T18:43:05Z")
The Democrats are certainly not “stealing” the election. How are they forcing anyone to vote either way? If the Republicans are stuck with an unelectable candidate, they can certainly prevail upon him to quit and let a better one run instead. If they have one, that is. “But we were gonna beat Torricelli! It isn’t fair that he can quit first!”, they shriek, stamping their little feet and pouting, instead of thinking of how to use their remaining time to figure out how to convince the electorate to vote for Forrester instead of Lautenberg, or to find somebody better than Forrester. **Sam** , can you seriously tell us you care as much about your own country’s politics as a foreign country’s? This is a most odd sight, a partisan Republican without a Republican party of his own. **Dewey** , not to belabor the point, but it’s clear not only what pretext SCOTUS used to rule the way they wanted to in Bush, but _that_ it was a pretext. Pretty clearly, the principle of equal protection requires that a vote have an equal chance of _being_ counted regardless of who cast it. Their rulings had the opposite effect. Only the most naive (and we have a few here) and the most partisan truly see a constitutional principle defended there. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391/185 "2002-10-04T19:06:10Z")
Elvis: > [@](#): > > If the Republicans are stuck with an unelectable candidate, they can certainly prevail upon him to quit and let a better one run instead. That’s exactly what I’m afraid of. We have a process fro this in place. It’s called “primary” and “campaign.” There is a cutoff for these two things when the candidates are supposed to be finalized, and then the voters get to decide based on what they’ve seen. Surely you’re not in favor of 11th hour changes. Surely you don’t think the laws that govern elections are mere customs to be ignored for expedience when the whim suits. Or should I just stop calling you Shirley? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391/186 "2002-10-04T19:17:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Surely you’re not in favor of 11th hour changes. Surely you don’t think the laws that govern elections are mere customs to be ignored for expedience when the whim suits. Er… what law was ignored? Specifically? To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, “I do not think that law means what you think it means.” It’s for the courts of New Jersey to decide what New Jersey laws mean. They have done so. There is no remaining confusion. You may have an opinion, but it’s not an authoritative one; the SCONJ’s opinion, on the other hand, is. **Elvis** - I can’t believe this issue won’t die. Here in New Jersey, there is no set of facts that gives rise to an Equal Protection violation. In Florida, difference counties were being counted by different standards. This was a violation of Equal Protection. In short: here the Democrats are right. There the Republicans were right. Period. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391/187 "2002-10-04T19:24:03Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Sam Stone:_ > \*\*Problem is, that’s not the way it happened. He was ‘advised’ by Bill Clinton and two other powerful members of the Democratic party. \*\* > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Squeegee:_ > \*\*I’m still thinking about the rest of your post, and it’s getting late, but please cite this. I honestly haven’t seen those reports. Googling ‘torricelli clinton’ yields a boatload of irrelevant cites. \*\*From Torricelli’s complete announcement. NY Times, will require registration, and probably will be stuck back in the Times Archives in 7 days. I am editing out a good deal of the sentimental claptrap, although I’m leaving in the Clinton bit at the end, 'cause as mawkish political speeches go, it’s a classic. 😃 > **[Torricelli's Announcement (Published 2002)](https://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/30/nyregion/torricellis-announcement.html)** > > Following is the full text of Senator Robert G. Torricelli's speech on Monday at the New Jersey State House: > **[Torricelli's Announcement (Published 2002)](https://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/30/nyregion/torricellis-announcement.html)** > > Following is the full text of Senator Robert G. Torricelli's speech on Monday at the New Jersey State House: > [@](#): > > Last night I met with a group of people who are leaders of the Democratic Party but also my friends, to talk about the reelection campaign and changes of strategy and advertising. And when the meeting was over, I asked two people who are very dear to me, Jim McGreevey [_governor of New Jersey_]… > > \< snip \> > > …and John [_sic–he actually spells it “Jon”_] Corzine [_Senator-D., NJ_]… > > \< snip \> > > The three of us sat in the governor’s study last night and I told them that I was concerned I could no longer assure that the United States Senate seat from New Jersey would remain not only Democratic but representing the things that we value. John Corzine dismissed me out of hand. Jim McGreevey listened patiently but concluded otherwise. > > \< snip \> > > This morning I called Governor McGreevey and told him I was convinced that this seat could be jeopardy. I have said the same to Senator Daschle when he was in New Jersey only days ago. I called him this morning and he told me he disagreed. We spoke several times more. I told him I was convinced. Okay, so here’s the “Clinton bit”. > [@](#): > > President Clinton called several times today from Great Britain. We recalled all the fights that we were in together, all the times I went to the White House and told him in the darkest days that what I admired about him is that “You never give up. You never compromise, you never stop, you never give up.” > > The phone connection wasn’t the best, but I could hear his voice crack. I admire that man so much. I hope I haven’t disappointed any of the three of you more than anyone else whose friendship that I treasure. But I will not be responsible for the loss of the Democratic majority in the United States Senate. I will not allow it to happen. There is just too much at issue. So to hear him tell it, it was all his idea, and they all tried to talk him out of it, and he’s only doing it for the good of the Republic. Why am I flashing on that short story where somebody sees Lincoln’s ghost and it asks, “Does the Union still stand?” and the guy says, “Yes, Mr. President, the Union still stands” and the ghost nods and leaves? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391/188 "2002-10-04T19:32:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\*Dewey, not to belabor the point, but it’s clear not only what pretext SCOTUS used to rule the way they wanted to in Bush, but _that_ it was a pretext. Pretty clearly, the principle of equal protection requires that a vote have an equal chance of _being_ counted regardless of who cast it. Their rulings had the opposite effect. Only the most naive (and we have a few here) and the most partisan truly see a constitutional principle defended there. \*\* Well, you _are_ belaboring the point. Rather than revive the topic that launched a thousand threads, I’ll just say that reasonable, non-naive, non-partisan minds can differ on how principled the equal protection argument given the specific (and very unusual) goings-on in Florida in 2000. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391/189 "2002-10-04T19:38:30Z")
Bricker: I’m sure you’re right. I’m not a lawyer. It seems to me that the NJSC basically altered the law after the fact to accomodate this change, kinda like that neat trick where Henry VIII retroactively reversed his marriage so that it never happened. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391/190 "2002-10-04T20:29:58Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by Bricker:_ > \*\*It’s for the courts of New Jersey to decide what New Jersey laws mean. They have done so. There is no remaining confusion. \*\*Glad _you’re_ not confused, honey, because the rest of us are sitting here holding our heads, going “owww…” 😃 If I’m following this correctly… Monday, September 30: At about 5 p.m. EDT, Torricelli resigns. Somewhere, a starting gun goes off. Shortly afterwards, probably about suppertime, the NJ attorney general tells the county election clerks to wait for a ruling from the state Superior Court before they start printing up the regular ballots. Tuesday, October 1: Tuesday morning: The Dems file suit with the state Superior Court to stop all the county clerks from printing up ballots. The State Superior court judge agrees, issuing a restraining order. She also instructs all 21 county clerks to meet with her on Thursday morning to figure out just exactly how they’re going to go about changing the ballots to take off Torricelli’s name and put on the name of whoever the Dems pick as the replacement. This isn’t like where you can just run off a few more on the Xerox machine. The Dems also ask the state Supreme Court to decide right away whether it’s okay for them to put someone else on the ballot instead of Torricelli. Tuesday noon: The state Supreme Court agrees to decide about that, and right away. Tuesday afternoon: the Democrats announce Lautenberg as the replacement candidate, to go on the ballot as soon as the state Supreme court says it’s okay. Wednesday, October 2: The state Supreme Court says it’s okay for the Dems to put Lautenberg on the ballot instead of Torricelli. Thursday, October 3: The GOP, vowing to “fight this all the way to the Supreme Court”–do. They ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the NJ state Supreme Court . Meanwhile, 21 county clerks (remember them?) meet with the state superior court judge, and they all glumly survey the clerical mess ahead of them. “This is chaos,” one of them is quoted as saying. Not the least of their worries is the fact that the $800,000 the Dems have been required to pony up for the change won’t cover overtime. Friday, October 4: The Democrats politely ask the U.S. Supreme Court to stay out of it. And that’s where the matter rests, as of this posting. The Supremes can decide to (a) overturn the state supreme court ruling, (b) hear the GOP’s complaint, or (c) stay out of it altogether. [CNN.com](http://CNN.com) notes, “There was no timeframe for their decision.” I think it would serve the whole kit ‘n’ kaboodle of 'em right if the Supremes decided to take the weekend off and make 'em sweat. 😃 To me, the most incomprehensible thing is the way the state Superior Court judge seems to have simply assumed on Tuesday that of course it was going to be all right for the ballots to be changed, that it wasn’t a question of “whether” but simply “how”. Was that proper for her to decide? The following links helped contribute to my massive headache. And I don’t even live in New Jersey… [http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/elec02.nj.s.legal.battle/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/elec02.nj.s.legal.battle/index.html) [http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/elec02.nj.s.torricelli.race/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/elec02.nj.s.torricelli.race/index.html) [http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/04/elec02.nj.s.torricelli.scotus.ap/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/04/elec02.nj.s.torricelli.scotus.ap/index.html) > **[Newsday | Long Island's & NYC's News Source](https://www.newsday.com)** > > Breaking News, data & opinions in business, sports, entertainment, travel, lifestyle, plus much more. Newsday.com is the leading news source for Long Island & NYC. [http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/newjersey/100402CLERKS\_O3.html](http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/newjersey/100402CLERKS_O3.html) [http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/october/m100202d.htm](http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/october/m100202d.htm) [http://santafenewmexican.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=2144&dept\_id=493858&newsid=5558893&PAG=461&rfi=9](http://santafenewmexican.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=2144&dept_id=493858&newsid=5558893&PAG=461&rfi=9) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391/191 "2002-10-04T20:50:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > **In Florida, difference counties were being counted by different standards. This was a violation of Equal Protection.** Exactly. But the obvious, and only, cure was to count them using the same standards, as much as good faith would allow. This the FSC tried to enforce, but the Bushies fought, and SCOTUS prevented it. Result: Votes in certain counties did have a higher probability of being counted than in other counties. That’s where the principle of equal protection was flouted in the name of protecting it. The motivations for doing so remain as obvious as ever. **Dewey** , sorry if you think it’s belaboring the point, but subversion of the basic principles of democracy is something that’s always going to be a topic of discussion. Might as well get used to it, friend. Now, as for this case, the only question is _what_ pretext these people are going to dream up as a rationale, not how they’ll rule. It isn’t a legal matter at all, really, simply political drama that the Scalia faction has shown itself unable to resist entering. **Scylla** , the question at hand is whose name is actually printed on the ballot. Any voter can either pull any lever or write in any name they like, and that was true before, too. No one’s legal or constitutional rights are being infringed. Upon what principle do you raise your objection? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391/192 "2002-10-04T21:14:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > **Dewey, sorry if you think it’s belaboring the point, but subversion of the basic principles of democracy is something that’s always going to be a topic of discussion. Might as well get used to it, friend.** Translation: I will flog a dead horse if I find it useful to do so. (And as noted, reasonable minds can differ on whether democracy was in fact subverted in Florida)\*\* > [@](#): > > Now, as for this case, the only question is _what_ pretext these people are going to dream up as a rationale, not how they’ll rule. It isn’t a legal matter at all, really, simply political drama that the Scalia faction has shown itself unable to resist entering.\*\* And if the Court denies cert or affirms will you retract this prediction with the same loud voice in which you made it? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391/193 "2002-10-04T22:09:20Z")
Well, **Dew** , I sure will, but mortified retractions don’t have the same impact when the mortifee is grinning from ear to ear. But if there’s the merest smidgeon of legal cover, the Scalia Axis will stuff this puppy in the blender. ---
**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, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391/194 "2002-10-04T22:12:29Z")
**The Democrats are certainly not “stealing” the election.** No, not stealing. Just cheating. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391/195 "2002-10-05T00:03:05Z")
Elvis: > [@](#): > > Scylla, the question at hand is whose name is actually printed on the ballot. Any voter can either pull any lever or write in any name they like, and that was true before, too. No one’s legal or constitutional rights are being infringed. Upon what principle do you raise your objection? Squeege and I already covered this. It was on the previous page. You may have missed it. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391/196 "2002-10-05T00:22:25Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by minty green_ > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by IndependentVoter_ > > Where do you think the cut-off should be on changing names on a ballot? There has to be a cut-off, could you tell us when you personally think the cut-off should be? > > Already stated: How long does it take to print and distribute ballots? That’s your answer. So **minty** , you don’t think it’s reasonable to allow the voters to have enough time to actually familiarize themselves with the candidates and the issues? I’m confident that I’m not the only voter who actually researches a candidate or issue and attempts to make an informed decision. Is it really empowering the voter to throw a new candidate at him with only the time necessary to print and mail ballots? I’d be pretty upset as a voter if I had to vote on a candidate that just popped up, after the work I put into preparing for the election. ---
**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 5, 2002, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391/197 "2002-10-05T00:44:33Z")
Only a month until the election, **emarkp**. Better get cracking or who knows what kind of space alien you might end up voting for with so little time to study. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391/198 "2002-10-05T00:55:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > Glad _you’re_ not confused, honey, because the rest of us are sitting here holding our heads, going “owww…” 😃 Who can blame you? You thought, as I did before the NJSC ruled, that NJ law prohibted a replacement name on the ballot if a candidate withdraws within 51 days of an election. But it turns out that the general intent of the NJ election laws is to “preserve the two-party system and to submit to the electorate a ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties…” N.J.S.A. 19:13-20, the law about vacancies, says at the beginning: > [@](#): > > 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… It says absolutely nothing about what should be done in case of a vacancy that happens later then the 51st day before the election. It’s simply silent. Now, you might conclude that the NJ legislature meant to imply that there was no way to replace a candidate inside the 51 day mark – after all, they wrote elaborate procedures to handle the 51+ day case, and didn’t say a word about the 51- day case – they must have meant that what they were legislating was the only way to replace a candidate. When a law is plain and unambiguous, the courts must apply its plain meaning. They are not permitted toi reconstruct the law or inquire as to legislative intent. But if a law is unambiguous, the courts may look to legislative intent to divine the proper interpretation. If the NJ lawmakers had merely added the line, “No name on the ballot shall be replaced within 51 days of an election,” then we’d have a different case here. But they didn’t. They failed to address it at all. So the NJ Supremes looked at past case law, at the general intent of the election laws, and decided that the law in New Jersey heavily favored the two-party system. In order to effectuate this intent, they fashioned the equitable remedy of permitting the Democratic party to name the new candidate. Until the NJ legislature clarifies their intent differently, this is the law in New Jersey. Nothing headachy about it! - Rick ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391/199 "2002-10-05T01:18:12Z")
I assume the second “unambiguous” is a typo? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391/200 "2002-10-05T01:49:08Z")
Bricker: Believe it or not, that helps! It seems like a rotten way to run a campaign, though. Hopefully NJ will fix this loophole as will other states to prevent future abuses. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torricelli-quits-senate-race-what-does-nj-law-say-about-replacing-his-name/130391.md?page=11)