Of course, you could just let New Jersey work out its election laws for itself, Scoob. But as long as you’re willing to take partisan potshots at another party in another state, it’s fair play for others to do the same. It’s stupid either way, of course, but that’s the way this pointless political sniping works.
Katherine Harris, BTW, neglected to resign from her office until 15 days after the statutory deadline for candidates running for other offices to do so. She purported to resign “retroactively.” Maybe Toricelli should do the same thing, huh?
The court’s ruling don’t really matter all that much in this case, however they decide it.
So Lautenberg may have to run a write-in campaign instead of a more traditional one. Big deal - it won’t take many reminders to voters, and there’s plenty of time for the NJDP to print up some instruction leaflets. There will be no real doubt among the electorate that the election is Forrester vs. Lautenberg, right?
And so now Forrester may have to actually discuss the issues affecting the lives of the people he wants to hire him, instead of simply proclaiming “I’m not Torricelli”. That is bad how? Because he might lose?
I think that Katherine Harris’ ethical shortfalls (or honest mistakes, depending on who you credit) have no bearing on this discussion, except insofar as there are people who are willing to forgive Harris and not the NJ Dems purely on the basis of their respective party affiliation. This needs no in-depth analysis to be revealed as a losing argument.
It seems to me that the Democrats have no real clain to a “right” to replace the name of a withdrawn candidate on the ballor inside the 51-day window. They are, of course, free to mount a write-in campagn, and free to mount a program of the sort discussed above: Toricelli pledges to resign if elected; governor pledges to appoint Joe Blow as new senator, etc.
But I think the idea that they are simply entitled to put a new name on the ballot because they didn’t like the chances of winning with the original name is ludicrous. And I would offer this view if the parties were reversed - which, by the way, I believe is exactly what might have happened if the incumbent were a Republican plagued by election problems in a year when the GOP held a 1-vote control of the Senate. In other words, neither party can credibly lay claim to ethical behavior across the board; in this case, the Dems happen to be the ones taking it the shorts.
A write in candidacy is a sure loser. Voters would have to spell Lautenberg correctly in order for their vote to count. I have no confidence that NJ voters are any smarter than Florida voters.
The best alternative (IMHO) would be to use the Carnahan example and just have McGreevy anounce who he will appoint to replace Torricelli if he wins, and have Torricelli promise to resign if he wins.
Then have the new candidate campaign between now and the election while Torricelli disapears.
If the voters trust Torrecelli to keep his promise and accept this bait and switch, then there is no problem.
If that’s the best alternative, then what is already a sometimes maddening political process might as well be thrown on the scrapheap. If that is the precendent that is set, it will realy screw up the system.
Imagine that happening in multiple races around the country at the same time.
State party leader - “Hmmm, this candidate that we thought would win is a dead duck. Let’s run Perfect Candidate instead.”
Perfect Candidate - “Fine by me. I haven’t had to spend any money up to this point. My opponent will have wasted his time and money campaigning against someone else while I have been quietly amassing attack material, a strategy, and a power base. Wonderful.”
Rest easy, Pubbies. Anthony “Tony Eyebrows” Scalia will ride to the rescue. Notwithstanding his fervent championship of states’ rights, and his equally fierce committment to keeping the Federales out of state politics (No, really! I’m not kidding! He isn’t either!), the Big Fix is congealing like Jello in the fridge.
He already has the relevent passages highlighted, the opinion is about half-written. He has, by now, already determined how he can reason himself into an act of towering hypocrisy. Keeping a straight face will be the problem. He’s just waiting by the phone.
You’ll get your free lunch. Mazel tov!, as they say in Lubbock. Much good may it do you.
The problem being this is exactly what the Dems are trying to prevent.
The election laws have already been worked out, by the elected representatives of the people of NJ. The New Jersey Democratic party is saying, in essence, “The laws can’t apply to us, because if they do, we lose.”
This line of reasoning echoes too well what was being advocated in a certain Southern state a while back.
“What do you mean, he loses if we use that standard? Change the standard, and count 'em again! And if that means we won’t meet the deadline set by law, to hell with the law! Count 'em again!”
And again. And again.
So the New Jersey Dems pick some other clown, and come a week before the election, they find Bozo the Party Hack is running a dozen points behind his distinguished opponent. Do they get to change their minds again, and nominate Mother Teresa?
There comes a time when you have to say “Enough is enough. You had your chance, and you blew it.” Nothing in the Constitution guarantees unlimited do-overs for anybody.
They will have another shot in two years. Maybe they will have learned something. If a Florida voter can learn to make a hole in a piece of paper, there’s hope for us all.
Ahhhh, nostalgia! Of all the Republican booshwa foisted off on our nation, the old “Recount after recount after recount…” is still my favorite! It packs such a load of misinformation into so few words!
Thanks for bringing that back for one more encore, Shodan. The old lies are the best, and this one is a chestnut! A veritable haiku of bullshit!
You should be ashamed of yourself, minty. You know that Ashcroft didn’t lose to a dead man; he lost to Jean Carnahan. You also know that Ashcroft could have asked the courts to set aside votes for the corpse, in which case he might have pulled out a victory. Even a threat to do that during the campaign might have helped him. Instead, he went along with the Dems clever scheme to let Jean C. effectively stand in for her husband. This allowed voters to get their choice and prevented the kind of ugly court fight that took place in Florida.
Ashcroft has been properly criticized for a number of questionable actions as regards civil liberties. It’s small-minded to criticize him for this praiseworty, public-spirited action.
Hey, I agree that the voters of New Jersey deserve a viable candidate and a competitive race. Don’t we deserve the same thing here in Seattle? The fucking Republicans didn’t even bother to run a candidate against fucking Jim McDermott. Not even a fucking empty suit. What, you couldn’t round up some homeless guy? Don’t the citizens of Seattle deserve a choice? Except the Republicans blew it.
Ah well, at least I have a race where I can vote Libertarian with a completely clean conscience.
But the argument that New Jersey HAS to have a viable Democratic candidate no matter what is laughable. Shoulda thought of that before the primary. I guess you can always do what they did in DC and hand out “write in Lautenberg” stamps.
Assumption: this quote actually reflects what Richard Perr actually said.
Where do they dig up these “experts?” As has been brought up on this thread (and even eluded to in the quoted article) there is more than one choice, even without Torricelli.
There may be real reasons why the Democrats’ issue is a legally valid one but this “expert” (the only independent legal source sited in the article) made himself look like a fool defending it.
Yay, what fun! It’s 2000 all over again! Let’s watch as the R’s gleefully abandon federalism to see if they can vanquish the terrible threat of democracy one more time!
The main precedent refered to was Kilmurray v. Gilfert, 10 N.J. 435, 441 (1952), where the candidate DIED between the deadline and election. The opinion has this quote from that decision:
I guess the Greens, Libs and everyone else should just hang it up. The two party system is enshrine in law :(.
It’s worse than that – allowing this sort of gaming the system would encourage the nomination of Max Mudslinger to blacken the other major candidate, followed by a last-minute substitution of Hector Highroad to dodge the backlash while still benefiting from however much of Max’s mud managed to stick.
They are appealing based on something to do with the absentee ballots that have already been mailed. I’m not sure if it is absentee ballots in general, or specifically absentee ballots sent to the military. I listened to the court hearing today and I remember one of the lawyers talking about some Federal 35 day deadline for mailing out ballots. I’m not a lawyer so I’m unable to relate the specifics of his arguement.
I also remember something about a state not being able to change the laws in the middle of an election, but I’m not sure if that has anything to do with the Federal suit.
This was such a done deal before they even had the hearings that it wasn’t funny. I felt like I was hearing a brainstorming session for how they could make the administrative details work and nothing else. Any time a Republican brought up a legal problem it was answered with a question about the mechanics of changing the ballots in time for the election.
Would any lawyer out there like to comment on two of the justices not recusing themselves from this case even though they donated to Torrecelli’s campaign? (and possibly Lautenberg’s old campaigns) That point really gets under my skin.
These guys(political hacks of both parties) watch each other’s backs with such shamlessness that it sickens me.
