I just heard Newt Gingrich on Hannity and Combes say that there’s a federal law requiring that absentee ballots be mailed to the military 35 days before an election. Sounds like grounds for a possible SCOTUS overrule.
Great, mail 'em the existing ballots. Problem solved.
About 10% of them have already been mailed, and it is now closer than 35 days. I assume the rest have not been mailed due to the restraining order issued Monday by the SCONJ.
If you switch the candidate, you can’t automatically assume that a vote for Torrecelli goes to Lautenberg.
There will be at least another week to mail out corrected ballots.
This is a BS situation caused by people who are willing to do anything in order not to lose.
This seems like an appropriate moment to link to a certain recent Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon.
This ruling is disgusting. But even more disgusting is the posturing by the Democrats on this board. Are you all so partisan that you can’t see a slimeball tactic when it’s in front of your face?
The fact is, the only reason the voters are being ‘denied’ a choice is because the Democrats themselves are taking it away from the people. Torricelli’s problems were known long ago. The Democrats should have punted him. Instead, they coldly calculated that even though he’s a crook, he’d have enough of a base to carry the election anyway. So they let him stay in office.
Is there ANYONE here who thinks that Torricelli would be resigning if he was ahead in the polls? Of course not. He’s resigned specifically to create a situataion in which he could be replaced. And he made the decision after ‘consulting with major Democratic Leaders’.
And I love this:
There are FIVE other names on the ballot. Four of them from national parties. I wasn’t aware that the only ‘choice’ was between Democrats and Republicans.
There are very good reasons to prevent switching candidates close to an election. The public needs time to study candidates.
You know what will happen now? Candidates with great public appeal but with ugly skeletons in the closet will rig it so that a ‘stand-in’ runs, then resigns as close as possible to the election. To counter that, state parties will scramble to mail ballots out immediately after the election freeze. Or ones that want a switch will drag their feet. This is going to create an awful lot of new backroom manoevering around election time.
But I suppose some people think that if this means a Democrat gets elected, it’s all worth it, right?
Oh well. Torricelli is going out in character. A very sleazy end to the career of a very sleazy man. But not the Democrats are wallowing in the sleaze with him.
Of course not. A vote for Torrecelli is a vote for Torrecelli. But who gives a damn, since the number of ballots mailed is small, and Democratic voters will just request a new ballot or write in Lautenberg anway?
That’s right, folks. Politicians play to win. Next on Stunning Revelations: Capitalists are motivated by profit. Who knew?
Whay slimeball tactic? Putting a guy’s name on a ballot? I know you R’s hate democracy, but please understand that we Democrats happen to be pretty keen on the concept.
No, Torricelli’s taking it away from the people. If he hadn’t quit, he’d still be on the ballot. That his resignation makes Republican heads explode is just an amusing side effect of that resignation.
Not me. But then again, darn few nominees of any stripe would quit if they were behind in the polls. You’re insane if you think this is going to become a regular feature of American politics.
Oh, wait, you’re seriously suggesting that’s going to happen, aren’t you?
It’s the second time this election cycle.
Cuomo dropped out very late in the NY Democratic pimary to avoid a loss.
Note the difference between nominee and candidate for party primary. The latter drop out all the time when they think they won’t win–even Republicans.
I think that whenever a candidate has major dirt discovered about him and drops irrecoverably in the polls, rather than just lose, he’s going to throw the election into the courts, with the help of the state party.
In the past, candidates had to fulfill two requirements: The first is that they have to win a nomination of their party members. Then they have to win a general election. Now there’s another option: Run a candidate who can win a nomination, then pull him and switch in someone who can win the general election. The two cases are very different - nominations are won by appealing to the ‘base’, or the more extreme voters. General elections are won by appealing to the moderates.
Let’s see how you feel the first time the Republicans run a pro-life candidate for nomination, then switch him for a pro-choice candidate who can win the election but wouldn’t have been able to win the nomination.
I’d vote for a pro-choice Republican, so I think your crazy, paranoid fantasy is just peachy. Thanks for the giggle!
As noted, there are five other parties on the ballot. Democracy would survive intact without replacing Toricelli.
Errr…only meant to quote your first sentence there, minty…
Article I Section IV states that the state legislature determines the manner of elections, not the state judiciary. The NJ legislature determined the 51-day rule, and the NJSC is not following state law. Quite similiar to the arguments in Bush v. Gore vis a vis the FLSC.
The NJSC is being just as partisan as the FLSC, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Perhaps you missed the point that six of the seven NJSC justices were appointed by Republicans, milroyj.
:watches gleefully as another Republican head explodes into a fine pink mist:
Huh? In a democracy, the legislature and governor are elected by the people to make the laws.
Today, with neither statutory justification nor Constitutional justification, my SC blithely changed the law, allegedly because they thought it might be an improvement. And, you accuse *R’s of “hating democracy”? Do you know what democracy means? It sure doesn’t mean that a seven appointed judges are free to make any law they feel like. The word for this type of government is oligarchy.
I agree with you, minty regarding the undesirability of jury nullification. Well, I don’t like judicial nullification any better. Both types of nullification are the opposite of democracy.
Of course, the more basic problem is the undermining of the rule of law. I am aware that the powerful get special legal privileges, but I don’t like to see it rubbed in my face.
No, in a democracy, the people vote. You’re describing a democratic republic, with the emphasis on republic. Me, I think the democratic part is pretty damn fundamental.
As, what’s wrong, 'Pubbies? You afraid the people of New Jersey might elect somebody other than your guy? Tough luck, that.
“Aw”
Yet he was dead on right. Imagine that. Anyhoo, if you are really interested, they get these experts by having them in their rolodex and calling them whenever an issue in their area of expertise comes up. Some profs like to gab, some don’t. But over time the idea is to build a list of sources who can provide you quotes for your copy. If they turn out to be right, all the better. Having been a newspaperman and a source, its all in a days work.
I would also point out that the view the Prof expressed seemed based on a sound argument. Nor do I think that any of the time limits are a problem here (and apparently the NJSC agrees with me) because there are no prohibitions.
It is entirely possible that the USSC will try to interfere as it did in Bush v. Gore, following that “precedent”, but I suspect only one or two of them have the balls to stick their soft parts in the ringer again. I’d guess Scalia is the most likely, maybe Thomas following Scalia.
There are FIVE NAMES on the ballot excluding Torecelli/Lautenberg. The people have a choice.
Or are third party candidates illegitimate choices for a voter to make? Does “choice” only equate to a choice between a Republican or a Democrat?