Rewriting the New Jersey Ballot: Some Preliminary Issue Spotting

FindLaw's Legal Commentary ^ | Friday, October 4, 2002 | Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar

[Question_Assumptions]

This Wednesday, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered election officials to replace Robert Torricelli's name on the November statewide ballot for United States Senator with that of Frank Lautenberg. What should observers make of the court's decision and the surrounding legal and political issues? In the grand tradition of law school exams, where students are given an interesting fact pattern and a short deadline, we will try to "spot" some of the major issues and provide some preliminary analysis.

[For the rest of the article, click here.]

[Question_Assumptions]

While looking at the text of the Republican filing to the Supreme Court, I took a look around the findlaw.com web site and found this interesting commentary about the legal issues surrounding the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling.

[Anti-Bubba182]

TAKE BACK THE SENATE!
VOTE OUT THE DEMS!

DONATE TODAY!!!. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

On the Foxnews Britt Hume Show today Britt made mention of a happening similiar to this in Minnesota a few years ago with Republicans!!

[the_Watchman]

Well worth the read!! Thanks for posting it!

[LiteKeeper]

bump for later reading

[MamaLucci]

The Minnesota example wasn't for a federal office, was it?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I am not sure. Do you know the case that Britt was referring to?

[MamaLucci]

Good find.
I especially liked this point:

Conversely, if this request for a new ballot is really
the "fault" of the Democrats–enough so that they and
only they should in fairness pay for the new ballots–
then isn't this payment order itself an implicit
admission that this is, to some extent at least, a
partisan request for partisan advantage?

[MamaLucci]

I heard him report it, it was very brief, but I think he
said it was the Governors race. Fellow by the name of
Carlson, or Clausen?

[Question_Assumptions]

Yeah, I thought that was interesting, too.

[ZOOKER]

First thought: Iowa Caucus, the New Hampshire Primary, Super Tuesday --- all a waste of time and money since candidates can be replaced anytime.

Since we blew through the 51-day barrier, what is now the minimum time between the switch and the election?
Bear in mind, ballots with the Torch's name were already printed and sent to absentees, so the polls are already technically open.

Say, what about those absentee ballots? Must a Lautenberg vote be written in, or does a Torch vote count for Lautenberg? Does your vote even count if it's on the old ballot?

If the old ballot is legal and the new candidate gets the old one's votes, what prevents me from stepping in ONE MINUTE BEFORE THE POLLS CLOSE, replacing a candidate and claiming victory?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

May have Found it - buried in this:

The 1990 Minnesota Governors race had a similar situation. The scandal-ridden Republican candidate (Grunseth) dropped out after the primary and just a couple weeks before the election. The Minnesota Supreme Court allowed the Republican Party to replace his name on the ballot with Arne Carlson's against the objection of the incumbent governor (Perpich) who was the Democratic candidate. The Republican went on to win the election. I don't recall anyone other than Perpich objecting to replacing Grunseth with Carlson at the time. Most people seemed to think that the Supreme Court made the right decision.

That was in the forum and Posted by: Neal on October 1, 2002 09:45 AM

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

ping!

[MamaLucci]

Good find. Similar, yet different! ;)

[Future Useless Eater]

...does a Torch vote count for Lautenberg?
Does your vote even count if it's on the old ballot?

If the election is close, expect every possible shenanigan from the demoRATS. They will want the Torch voters 'intent' factored in... (meaning a vote for Lautenberg)

Or they will want all the 1st-ballot military votes thrown out

Or they will demand to keep the one 'rule' in their favor, i.e., they will demand that military votes arriving after election day be discarded per state statute, even though they were mailed out late.

I wonder how many military guys in foxholes or on ships will NOT EVEN BOTHER voting because they KNOW they cant get their ballots back to N.J. in time before the polls close?!!!

You'd think with the close proximity of Jersey to the twin towers, and with the anthrax attacks originating from Jersey, that the voters there would be fed up with all this democratic bull shi'ite, corruption and traitorism.

Doug Forrester: You can come across here as a hero, by accepting this setback graciously, and LOUDLY championing the cause of our military guys and their right to get a fair vote. Also by blasting Lautenberg as the traitorous anti-war gun-hater that he is!

Remind Jersey'ites that Lautenberg will be 84 before his term expires and since he didn't have the energy to run a 'regular' campaign, how can he have the energy to keep up with the 21st century demands of the senate in this new hectic world of terrorism. Point out the midnight sessions in the senate, and how hard they are on Strom Thurmond for example. Show how mean Senators like Clinton, Kennedy and Daschle can be in forcing late night votes, and all-weekend sessions.

Show clips of poor old shaky and senile Senator Byrd rattling off about drivel in his old age. Even show clips of hoarse, sullen-faced Daschle ragging on about an undeserved apology. Show that the Senate is a rough place for even a senator with stamina on his side.

Remind voters that Lautenberg often mumbled and rambled, and labored to get any point across. He would not be effective. Remind voters that Lautenberg's retirement speech claimed: "The fact of the matter is the years spent in the Senate have been a large personal inconvenience and effort".

Thank Lautenberg gracefully for his past years of service, but get the point across that it takes enormous energy today to turn around a do-nothing Senate in our stressful time of war and terrorism.

[Dianna]

I can't find much more info on this case. But here is what I've got if someone can perform a better search.

The "dropping out" Republican was Jon Grunseth. The "new guy" was Arne Carlson. Court case was Clark v. Growe heard in Minnesota Supreme Court. Grunseth pulled out of the campaign on Oct 29, 1990 (for Gov of Minn.)

Arne Carlson was the runner up in the Republican primary and at the time of Grunseth dropping out was waging a write in campaign.

[Dianna]

Odd website...one of the posters was quite gleefully pointing out that the military could FAX in their ballots from all over the world! No need for mail.

I asked if submarines are equipped with fax machines. LOL! Can faxes be sent while under water? And if this can be done, wouldn't it place our submarine in jeopardy, alerting all other ships (possibly enemy ships) to it's position? Quite a risky undertaking.... :)

[Future Useless Eater]

...Britt made mention of a happening similiar to this in Minnesota a few years ago with Republicans!!

Things were a little different though!
Arne Carlson was mostly a RINO (Republican In Name Only), and Carlson was the 2ND HIGHEST VOTE-GETTER in the Republican Primary!

He was was so unpopular within the Republican Party, he did not even try to win the Party's endorsement. Carlson's pro-choice view on abortion and pro-gay rights stance were too hard to stomach by the 1990 Republican Party.

In the Primary, Carlson finished second in a three-way race. But then in mid-October, the local liberal news-trash-paper ambushed the leading Republican (Grunseth) with dirt they had been saving up for weeks or months, in order to turn the election over to their favorite Democrat at the last minute.

Carlson then started an effective write-in campaign, one week after the Republican was 'Torch'ed.

The paper and the Democrat felt some backlash, as the PUBLIC and the Supreme Court favored letting the 2ND PLACE PRIMARY FINISHER replace the disgraced Republican.

The Supreme Court only agreed to this TWO WEEKS after the conservative went down in flames. This was ONE WEEK after Carlson launced an effective, much publicized, write-in campaign that looked like it might succeed.

The Court decided that that since Carlson was the second-placed finisher in the Republican Primary, he was already 'selected' by the voters to be on the ballot.

The two local commie-trash-papers didn't complain because they then had basically TWO democrats on the ballot, Perpich AND Carlson. They figured they had won either way.

...
So WHY won't the New Jersey Department of State, Regena L. Thomas, tell us who was the Democratic Primary's 2nd-Place finisher??? After all, 66,484 Democratic ballots were turned in that did NOT vote for Torch, and write-in's WERE LEGAL... WHO CAME IN 2ND in NEW JERSEY's DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY??? Was this a democratic cover-up?

[Dianna]

The paper and the Democrat felt some backlash, as the PUBLIC and the Supreme Court favored letting the 2ND PLACE PRIMARY FINISHER replace the disgraced Republican.

Ok, I know nothing about Minnesota law. But, how did they change the ballots? The first guy dropped out a week before the election.

Were there absentee ballots involved?

Seems to me, unless Minnsota law is drastically different than NJ, the Supreme Court made the wrong decision. Laws are laws.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Excellent post, QA. A very informative article from outside the normal range of sources we see on FR.

I was encouraged that these legal experts, who clearly are not partisan Republicans, were highly critical of the decision by the NJ Supreme Court. On the other hand, they weren't not particularly optimistic as to the likelihood that the US SCT would accept jurisdiction.