[aristeides]

The only exception ever recognized by a New Jersey court was in the case of the death of a nominee. Petition of Koegh-Dwyer, 106 N.J. Super. 567, 256 A.2d 314 (1969), affirmed 54 N.J. 523, 257 A.2d 697.

I looked at this case. The court based its decision upon the intent of the voters. The winning candidate in a primary was already dead before the primary. The candidate behind him sued to get the nomination. The court held against him, because it held that the voters, knowing that the winning candidate was dead, intended to create a vacancy, so that a party committee could name a substitute. You can't make any similar case that the voters who voted for Torch in the primary intended to create a vacancy.

[Dianna]

The court held against him, because it held that the voters, knowing that the winning candidate was dead, intended to create a vacancy, so that a party committee could name a substitute.

Well here is the precedent for why we didn't go after Carnahan. Makes more sense now.

[San Jacinto]

#1666

Good job. That case cannot help the Torch.

[Gamma-131-I]

You can't make any similar case that the voters who voted for Torch in the primary intended to create a vacancy.

No, but if he resigns his office before the election but within 30 days of it, McGreevey will be able to appoint his successor for the time being while still keeping his name on the ballot. Then the NJ Democrats can continue to vote for Toricelli claiming that they knew that their vote was really for his appointed successor (as another poster called it, a living variation of the Carnahan gambit) and then if he wins, McGreevey can appoint the same person when the term starts next January. That will clinch the seat until the next Senatorial election anyway.

Not a pleasant prospect to me, but it seems plausible.

Gamma