If that definition is true, then it is not so much a vacancy as it is a continuation of the 2004 election. If it is a continuation of the 2004 election, then several things come into play: 1) the argument that the gubernatorial election must coincide with the legislative election is still adhered to (as this is still a part of the 2004 election), and 2) that a "revote" has to wait until the next general election might apply to vacancies, but this is not a vacancy, it is a voided election so the court could order the legislature to call for an immediate revote (if it can't do it itself).
Now, the difference between a revote of the 2004 slate and a new election is significant: if it is truly a revote, then the 2004 slate from November 2 should be the exact slate that the population votes on again. If it is a new election to fill a vacancy, then anyone can announce a candidacy and run.
It seems that the logical conclusion is that the 2004 gubernatorial election is voided, and the exact slate is to be revoted on at a date specified by the courts.
-PJ
i think you get the general gist of wnat my argument would be. The position of governor is too important to wait anothe nine months for an election.