Like Bush’s DUI? 
BTW…
Didn’t we just have a flap about Katherine Harris missing some election deadline in Florida?
I think we need to get a final word once and for all abotu whether election deadlines mean anything.
I think the whole point is to prevent people from having their votes swayed by last-minute events. To prevent grandstanding, or just skewed voting by short-term events.
If someone wants to send in their ballot, then that’s their right. They know the risk in doing so. The reason for abstentee ballots is for people who, for whatever reason, can’t vote on the particular day. The deadlines for sending those in shouldn’t be adjusted for “Gotcha” politics.
There is a reason for printing the ballots already. The deadline for naming candidates had passed.
Both perfect examples, Independent Voter.
Hey, is that a mote in your eye, december.
The most important principle, and one that trumps trivial legalistics, is the right, and the duty, of the people to choose. For whatever reason, Torricelli is out of it. Whether his action is motivated by reasons base or noble if of no real consequence. He is not a candidate.
Nevertheless, there must be a candidate, if there is to be any meaningful election. Find the technicality, whatever it takes, and let the people decide.
If the situation were entirely opposite, I would feel precisely the same way. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it, boys.
According to the NJ state website, there are still 5 other candidates (4 of them aren’t even Repubicans):
Douglas R. Forrester- Republican
Ted Glick- Green
Elizabeth Macron- Libertarian
Gregory Pason- Socialist
Norman E. Wahner- NJ Conservative
There is no law that states that there has to be a Democratic candidate for the slot. Since the Dems screwed up by nominating Torricelli when it was common knowledge that there were some ethical questions about him, and Torricelli didn’t have the courtesy to drop out in time to be legally replaced as the Dem nominee, it would seem that the Dems are SOL on this one. Live and learn.
Another (legal) possibility- vote for Torricelli. If he wins and doesn’t accept the post, the governor can appoint a suitable replacement. It worked in Missouri last time around. Might work here if the governor lets the people know who he will choose to fill the spot.
Here is a Yahoo news article explaining why the Democratic strategy might work and might pass legal muster:
Article seems to me to actually be a likely scenario.
Well, now that you mention it, Scooby…
The prospect of a Green candidate whipping the Pubbie one on one is, as is said in the homeland, a “hoot”! But the people deserve an election, not some legalistic travesty.
And, no, Toricelli cannot be on the ballot. That isn’t in dispute. What is in dispute is replacing him with another candidate.
I say do it, and get it on!
I think the court ought to take the case.
The court should evaluate the reasonableness of the request, trying to uphold the ideals expressed by elucidator, but balance it with the practical issues of putting another name on the ballot.
The reasons for the candidate’s departure shouldn’t be a consideration to the court.
I doubt the purpose of the deadline was to limit the affect of last minute mood-swings, but was instead put in place years ago as a practical matter to allow the Secretary of State to conduct the election. If it is still practical, change the name.
I would be surprised to learn that it is still practical. But I know nothing 'bout holding a NJ election.
That’s only issue #1. Whose name? Appointed by the Governor - under what precedent? I don’t see the solution here.
The court may be better off not acting. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Torricelli running in proxy for another candidate, with plans to resign, and a Governor’s appointment under the statute provided.
Why bother having election laws if they are going to be dismissed as “some legalistic travesty?” The rules of the game were known (or at least available to be known) to all participants beforehand.
This isn’t a voting rights issue. Noone will be denied the right to vote just because there is no Dem in the race. They may not be able to vote for their first choice, but that’s life. I haven’t once gone to the polls without holding my nose- have my voting rights been violated?
If we are going to toss aside the rule of law in such a cavallier fashion, why bother having laws?
**
If this is all really just an ugly example of partisan politics, this ought to settle the matter.
I still think the Democrats are going to regret this, especially if Torricelli ends up having to resign to the Govenor can hold a special election. Has anyone seen any polls of New Jersey voters attitudes towards all this?
According to www.politicsnj.com, two of the judges have donated money to Torecelli. I’m asuming that the website would have the integrity to announce if they had found judges donating to Forrester.
elucidator
*The prospect of a Green candidate whipping the Pubbie one on one is, as is said in the homeland, a “hoot”! But the people deserve an election, not some legalistic travesty. *
The fact is that the people were HAVING an election. Torrecelli and the Democrats just didn’t like the people’s choice. Blatant rejection of a candidate and his behavior is part of the process.
As a NJ voter, I feel robbed of my opportunity to vote against Torrecceli. I’ve had to listen to him bitch and moan for the last couple of years about how innocent he was, I want there to be a concrete consequence for his actions. I want to make a very loud statement that taking bribes is not acceptable behavior. I want the political parties to be forced to have some sort of integrity.
The Democrats did not suddenly awake and decide that they needed an ethical candidate. The Torch just gave a National Democratic radio address over the weekend. Daschle was here campaigning for the guy. He was acceptable all the way until they realized he was unsalvagable.
Landslide losses to punish bad moves like this are an integral part of the process.
It was unnacceptable for Torrecelli to run unopposed in the primary.
On another note, where is the fairness for all the Democrats out there who never got to vote or run in a primary to choose his replacement? I don’t see how democracy is served in NJ by having a candidate hand picked from above at the last minute because the national leaders did not approve of how the state’s citizens were going to vote.
Ask Katherine Harris, a hypocrite of astounding proportions who decided state election law doesn’t apply to her.
IV:
You’re confusing a party’s right to nominate a candidate with the people’s right to elect a senator. Surely, the NJ Democratic Party has procedures in place for replacing a nominee who dies or resigns before election day. I assume they’re following those procedures.
I just can’t feel any sympathy here for the Democrats on this one.
Carnahan stayed on the ballot two years ago and there is currently another dead Democrat running in Hawai. **If death doesn’t justify replacing someone on the ballot, then the possiblity of losing shouldn’t either. **
Link on current Hawai ballot:
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2002/Sep/28/br/br12p.html
If Torrecelli wants to finish out the election on the promise he will resign and let McGreevy appoint a replacement if he wins, that would be fine with me. Torrecelli has broken enough laws and jerked us around long enough.
I want him to stand accountable.
It is the shenanigans like this that come from BOTH PARTIES that keep me an independent.
Bravo!
Dead candidates, dead voters, the Dems don’t care as long as you’re on their side.
Bravo!
Dead candidates, dead voters, the Dems don’t care as long as you’re on their side.
Yep, that’s right. John Ascroft got thrown out of the Senate by a corpse. I mean, how lame do you have to be to get beat by a dead guy?
I’m not familiar with what she has done (I remember something about staying on as SecState of Florida while she was running for Congress). She should suffer the consequences just like anyone else. But that’s in Florida, where they (all of 'em- Dems, Pubs, Indies, Greens, Libs, etc.) can’t seem to do anything right lately.
I don’t see how anything Katherine Harris has done or not done should affect the Torricelli case at all. They are in different states with different election laws. Of course, you know that.
Judging from the way this has been going so far, I wouldn’t assume that they have a plan for anything.