Yes, and now the New Jersey electorate has a clear choice. They can chose to support a criminal and vote for the Democrat candidate, or they can vote Republican, or they can vote for the Green Party candidate.
Choices abound!
If the Democrat party didn't want to give the electorate such a clear choice (ethically challenged extortionist v. apparently honest businessman), then they should have worked harder to seat a better candidate in the primary.
Right now the electorate has a choice among three candidates. If the court allows the Democrats to remove Torrielli from the ballot, then there will still be two candidates running.
Will the Democrats argue that there is a constiutional right for the Democrat party to have a "viable" candidate on the ballot, and at the same time argue that they get to determine what "viable" means and when the "viability" means test gets applied?
Yes... :) Because they can.
You are too logical, you know. You make too much sense.
Regards, Jen
It's enough to make my chad dangle.
Exactly. And now they seek legal redress because they made a bad political decision. Using the courts to counteract stupidity. *daschle voice on* It's outrageous, outrageous /daschle.
Regards