Then I guess you have a problem with more choices, huh?
I have a problem with flaunting the rules, and this is about as flagrant as you can get. Torricelli’s removal from the ballot wasn’t from some uncontrollable event, like death or illness. No one doubts he could have stayed on the ballot right through election day. Waiving the deadline in this instance makes a mockery of the deadline. If a party can avoid the deadline in this case, why have a deadline at all?
Mickey Kaus put it best: “It’s ironic that the court pays such attention to finding what it thinks is the most democratic way to pick a lawmaker, even as it brushes aside the actual work-product of those democratically-elected lawmakers, namely statutes.”
So spare me the rhetoric about how “Pubbies hate democracy” or (as Paul Begala implied tonight on CNN) that this would be a Soviet-style one party election. There are FIVE OTHER CANDIDATES to choose from, plus voters can still write in candidates. Unless you’re prepared to say that third-party candidates have no meaningful place in the American political scheme, that a third-party choice must be illegitimate, then the voters’ choices have not been taken away.
I mean, really, how far do you take this? Let’s say I want to run as a third party, but I choose to announce two weeks before the election. Should I get on the ballot? After all, that would represent “more choices” for New Jersey voters, and in your view apparently that’s what really counts. Who cares if it violates a few rules and creates administrative headaches? Democracy is improved! And that’s what counts, right kids?
I want to be on the ballot for NJ senator, too. I know the NJ election laws say that, technically, I don’t qualify, since I don’t live in Jersey and I’m way past the deadline for establishing residency & filing my papers. I meet all the other requirements- I’m over 30, a citizen and I’ve kept my nose clean (well, I haven’t been caught getting my nose dirty). Perhaps I’ll move there tomorrow and see if the Libertarian candidate or the Socialist candidate would mind dropping out of the race. That’ll give me my opening. It’ll give the people more choices. :rolleyes:
I am not always sure what you are saying.
If my understanding is correct, and you are accusing me of lying when I say that there were recounts in the Florida elections, then -
[list=1]
[li]Here is a cite. [/li][li]Your accusation is both untrue and insulting. You will apologize.[/li][/list=1]
This may seem unexpected…
But absent a federal constitutional violation, which I don’t see here, the New Jersey Supreme Court is the one that says what the law in New Jersey means.
In New Jersey, the intent of the law is to uphold the two-party system:
This interest trumps the actual words of the law.
When a court decides that without certain warnings being given, even a voluntary confession is inadmissible, even though the law holds the opposite, we (now, anyway) accept that this is a decision about what the Constitution requires – even if the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say that.
When a court decides that the Constitution forbids states from prohibiting abortion, even though there are no specific words to that effect, we accept this as well (most of us, anyway).
This is, in principle, little different. In New Jersey, the rule is that the two-party system is of more importance than the actual law. That’s simply the way it is.
My OP asks what the law is in New Jersey. Now we know. Let’s get on with the campaign.
- Rick
Here’s the actual court decision (in PDF)
And, to answer your question, the court says yes. They say, quoting from an earlier, 1952 decision:
Dewey and Scooby (and boy, that was fun to write), you have to consider that New Jersey–like every state–has special rules and procedures for putting candidates of major political parties on the ballot. In NJ, if a party accumulated 10% or more of the vote for the General Assembly in the previous general election, that party’s nominee is guaranteed a place on the ballot next time. Rules like that are why Pat Buchananan, as the Reform Party fuehrer, was on all those state ballots in 2000, despite having next to no popular support.
What that means is that major parties get major consideration when it comes to putting candidates on the ballot. If you want to run for Governor of New Jersey, you better get nominated by a major party or start collecting signatures right away. Not just any old schmoe gets to be on the ballot under these circumstances–Lautenberg is on the ballot because he is the (presumably) duly-nominated candidate of a major political party. Repubicans get the same consideration. If you’re convinced your guy is gonna get his ass handed to him by Lautenberg, try to convince your guy to resign and put somebody better on the ballot. Good luck convincing him to quit, however. Politicians aren’t usually known for selflessly sacrificing themselves for anybody’s sake but their own.
Moreover, I’ve read the applicable statute, and NJSC is absolutely correct. It establishes what to do when a major party nominee dies or resigns 51 or more days before the election, but it doesn’t say one single word about what happens when the candidate dies or resigns less than 51 days before the election. In other words, it is completely silent about the events of this week. Given the NJ legislature’s stated goal of ensuring that major party candidates are included on the ballots, the court’s ruling is perfectly reasonable and does NOT conflict with the language of N.J. Stat. 19:13-20.
In addition to the moreover, there is New Jersey precedent for precisely that outcome. The court yesterday was emphatically not making up new law. See Kilmurray v. Gilfert, 91 A.2d 859 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1952), in which the court held that candidate a candidate who died one day after the “deadline” could still be replaced on the ballot. (On preview: I see that Capt. Amazing just brought up that same case.)
To sum up, the court’s judgment: [ul][li]Is not inconsistent with the statutory deadline.[]Is entirely consistent with the express legislative purpose of New Jersey election law.[]Is absolutely consistent with existing New Jersey case law on the exact point at issue.[/ul][/li]So what the heck are you guys complaining about, other than the prospect of losing an election?
To assure that ballots can be printed and distributed in time for the election. 51 days for that is ridiculously excessive and serves no reasonable purpose–take the damn things down to Kinko’s and you’ll have enough ballots for the whole county ready the next morning.
Oh, I know you don’t really hate democracy. You just hate losing. 
Perhaps it is excessive, but isn’t that a decision properly left in the hands of the NJ legislature?
Reading the statute the way the court is completely nonsensical. Think about it: the statute prescribes these detailed rules for filling vacancies outside of the 51 day mark; so the legislature says you have to do all these complicated things before 51 days, but after 51 days you can just do whatever the hell you want? That doesn’t pass the smell test.
The only precedent is where a guy keeled over right before the election. At least in that situation the court could plausibly recognize extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of any of the candidates and formulate an equitable remedy. That is not the case here.
And in both cases I’m disturbed that the court would seek to “preserve the two-party system.” Why? The “good” of a two-party system is not enshrined in any constitution or statute. There is nothing in the laws of New Jersey or the United States requiring a two-party system. Even if you’re a fan of the two party system (and I am), that system should not be promulgated by judicial fiat. The two major parties shouldn’t get any special advantages (like they really need them anyway).
No, it is not nonsensical at all to read the statute the way the court did. Frankly, all 19:13-20 does is establish procedures for selecting replacement candidates. The statute has nothing whatsoever to do with placing names on ballots. Seriously–read the statute. I’d link to it myself, but the N.J. Legislature’s site doesn’t go above ch. 19:4.
Er… The NJSC is the final authority on what the New Jersey laws mean. And as minty green points out, this decision doesn’t contradict the existing case or statutory law.
So what’s the problem?
Certainly, I’d have a problem if a similar situation arose in the future with a Republican withdrawal and the GOP was not permitted to substitute a name… but as far as I’m hearing, this was a matter of first impression in New Jersey, and now it’s settled.
I admit that the decision seems to flaunt my own personal sense of fair play. But since no governor of New Jersey has seen fit to ask me to serve on the Supreme Court, my opinion of fair play is meaningless. Indeed, it’s hard to argue that it would control my actions even were I on that bench, since the 1952 case is, if not controlling, at least persuasive in its reasoning.
If the voters of New Jersey feel aggrieved, they have the remedy in hand: reject the new Democratic nominee. They’ve got over a month to decide to do that.
- Rick
Minty: I did read it. New Jersey statute.
(If that doesn’t work, get there from Findlaw; select “New Jersey Statutes” and expand the list for Title 19. Click the “Next” icon in the lower-right-hand corner until you get to 19:13-20.)
And my criticism above still stands.
Bricker: Yes, the NJSC is the ultimate arbiter of NJ law. That doesn’t mean we cant criticize them for getting it wrong.
He wasn’t accusing you of lying, he was responding to this:
This was precisely the spin that was promoted by the GOP in the 2002 elections. It was self-serving hyperbole. In other words, spin.
Spin isn’t fact. It’s spin.
Or ‘bullshit’, to use Elucidator’s less-kind idiom. 
Jeez, how is anyone posting to this thread at all – the hamsters seem to be working in solidarity with the Oakland dock workers today
How on earth can your criticism still stand if the statute is not even about placing names on ballots? Really, Dewey, I’m baffled here.
Except that they can’t have gotten it “wrong” if they are the ones that decide what’s right and wrong.
Let me put it another way. You’re a one-judge panel from the Supra-Supreme Court of New Jersey, reviewing the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court for abuse of discretion. Do you affirm or reverse?
- Rick
Courtesy Scrappleface:
That would be a pretty cool matchup. Bring it on, 'Pubbies.
A standard under which Plessy v. Ferguson, Buck v. Bell, and Koramatsu v. US were all “right” interpretations of the Constitution because the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is or isn’t Constitutional. Just because a body has the power to create law by their decisions doesn’t mean their decisions cannot be criticized as being illogical, inconsistent, or just plain wrong.**
Can I also review their decision de novo?
Minty: the statue is indeed about candidate selection. Which would carry with it ballot placement by implication. Yours is a distinction without a difference.
No, because they are the ones with the authority to determine what New Jersey law means. A de novo review is, in this case, a complete review, because there are no questions of fact.
I choose to ask about abuse of discretion for a very good reason - this is not about what you’d decide if you were in their shoes, but whether any reasonable judges, in their positions, could reach the conslusions they did.
I don’t believe an abuse fo discretion review would overturn their decision.
- Rick
Bricker:
Apparently, the Republican party disagrees with your asessment of the finality of the decision. I just heard they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Bricker: but that’s my point. Very little debate on the courts falls under “abuse of discretion” criticism – an absurdly high standard – but rather criticism of the reasoning underlying whatever decision the court reached. I don’t think you could make the case that the Plessy court abused their discretion, though many have convincingly made the case that that court’s reasoning was flatly wrong.