Replies

Since I don't think that this has been tested, and the Senate does have final say as to who sits there (Article I, Section 5, US Constitution), so long as the RATs get and maintain a majority, they'll try.

Thanks for the info Steve (and Wphile). I agree they'll try. But I think they'll fail. I think that state law is blatantly unconstitutional, because it provides a mechanism by which the governor can prevent the public from ever electing another Senator, and that's a total violation of the Seventeenth Amendment.

If McGreevey's smart, he'll appoint someone like Bradley of Lautenberg but also make said appointee run on the November ballot. If he tries to appoint the guy for a full six-year-plus term, it's going to get thrown out by the SCOTUS.

If I am reading what has been posted about New Jersey law correctly, it is already too late for the Dem Party to put a new name on the ballot (inside 48 days of the election).

If Torch resigns, the Dem governor appoints his replacement.

If Torch resigns from the Senate before Oct. 5, then a NJ Senator is elected in the coming election this year.

On the other hand if Torch resigns within 30 days of the election, then the Governor can cancel the coming election and the appointee would serve until the 2004 election OR the governor could call a special election before then.

My guess is that it would be politically untenable for the governor and the Dems to let the appointee serve til 2004.

I am afraid what they are doing is this: (1) Torch resigns within 30 days of the election(after Oct. 5); (2) the gov. appoints a new Dem Senator; and (3) the gov. sets the day for the special election for January or February. That way the newly appointed Senator would get to build up a little name ID as an incumbent.

It seems clear the Dems want Torch out of the race, and I cannot beleive they would let it happen in a way that their chosen replacement does not have his name on the ballot. Hence, the above scenario.