posted on October 1, 2002 04:31:40 AM new
From the AP this morning:
Under New Jersey law, a political party can replace a statewide nominee on the ballot if the person drops out at least 48 days before the election.
Only 36 days remain. A hearing was planned Tuesday afternoon in state Superior Court. Democrats argue that they should not be bound by the deadline. Republicans have said that any attempt to remove Torricelli violates the law.
Place your bets....in who's favor do you think the state supreme court will rule? And why?
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 1, 2002 04:33 AM ]
If the democrats can keep the repugs trying to stop the replacement long enough the election will not take place. If that happens a replacement appointed by the incumbant party will serve until a special election can be held. In New Jersy those only take place during normal election time. The replacement, though never elected, will serve until Nov. 2004. Isn't there even one repug that's smart enough to realize that this is a carefully scripted ploy by the democrats?
posted on October 1, 2002 11:26:14 AM new
Some talking head at Rutgers Law school is using phrases like "snowball in hell" about the Dems chances of circumventing the law. It's a your guy is losing so you go out and get another guy ploy. The Dems are going to the Supreme Court to try and get a pass, in which case the State Committee finds another candidate. This involves reprinting ballots, etc., otherwise the Republican would run unopposed.
posted on October 1, 2002 11:46:56 AM new
DeSquirrel - [If you're still here]
I haven't heard/read if some of the NJ voters might have already voted. But I have read where other state laws allow the voters to vote long before the Nov. elections. Those I saw mentioned were W. Virginia and New Mexico, where some have already voted.
So....if that is the case, and I realize it might not be for NJ, what would happen to the ballots of those who already voted? Do you know?
Seems odd to me, since he was admonished by the Senate, a while back that he didn't step down then, rather than waiting until now.
posted on October 1, 2002 12:25:05 PM new
It's too early for absentee ballots. The paper said the only reason the Dems might have a glimmer of a chance is the fact that because of a change in voting times the ballots would have to be re-printed anyway.
posted on October 1, 2002 01:48:11 PM new"It's too early for absentee ballots"
You don't know that, and are talking out of your as usual. I've already voted in WA, and so has my wife. I won't presume to say whether WA has earlier absentees, but I would say that if one does any could.
posted on October 1, 2002 02:05:16 PM new
In NJ, absentee ballots can be mailed beginning 40 days before election date. Since they don't mail on weekends, the earliest a batch of ballots could have been mailed would have been Monday, assuming some of the counties even began generating batches of mailings.
posted on October 1, 2002 03:12:50 PM new
I haven't read the story, but the reporter would have had to have counted election day itself, November 5, as one of the 40 days. However, technically, the language in law reads 40 days before the election, which would exclude election day itself in the count, which would mean that absentee ballots could have been mailed on Thursday, September 26.
posted on October 1, 2002 03:50:35 PM new
DeSquirrel -
Some states have both early voting and also absentee voting. I wasn't aware that even happened until we moved here. When we lived in CA I was under the impression that one only voted on election day or by absentee ballot. Thought it was the same way all over the US.
Moved here [AR] and our friends asked us if we'd voted yet. Thought they were crazy as it was maybe a week before the election date. They teased that they had just walked into our County Clerks office and asked to vote. Here we can vote 15 days prior to our elections...at the county clerks office, or sometimes the newspaper will give what they call "off site" places one can vote. That's in addition to requesting absentee ballots.
Different states, I've learned, have different lengths of time for 'early voting'. Might be why NJ has that 48 day law to begin with.
posted on October 7, 2002 03:43:06 PM newFOLLOW UP:
"The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously that election laws should be "liberally construed" to provide a "full and fair ballot choice for the voters of New Jersey."
