New Jersey Senate race switch sets off scramble to get ballots ready

The Associated Press ^ | October 4, 2002 | Tom Bell

[jpthomas]

TRENTON, N.J. -- For Adam Perna, a Supreme Court decision on the New Jersey Senate race could mean a lot of work.

If the high court lets stand the state Supreme Court ruling allowing Frank Lautenberg to replace Sen. Robert Torricelli on the ballot, Perna's business and others like his will shift into overdrive.

[jpthomas]

What a fiasco!

[goldstategop]

Yup... and the Rats want taxpayers to pick up the tab for bumping The Torch from the ballot.

[OldFriend]

That $800,000 figure is fiction just like the rest of their case............it will cost millions.

[mass55th]

Could we dare pray for a massive printer breakdown? Perhaps this will go by the same route as the Florida recount, where they couldn't even comply with their own deadline.

[sirchtruth]

How can a court of what is supposed to be made up of men and women of wisdom and good sense, that should have the knowledge to not only know their own state laws, but apply them accordingly, be so DEVOID!

I hope the good people of NJ make this skunk court look as hopelessly ridiculous as the usurping autocrats they are!

USSC should not even deal with this, send it back to NJ and let these thug justices wallow in their idiocy.

[uncbob]

Court's reasoning ( in addition to it being illegal ) about choice is BS
Write ins can always be used

[randita]

Judge Linda Feinberg also said she would consider requiring the names of people who requested absentee ballots - nearly 18,000 already by one estimate - to be printed in newspapers to alert voters to the switch.

YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING! What about privacy concerns? What about not wanting people (especially criminals) to know you're away from your home? I can't believe this would even be considered, it's so outrageous.

[randita]

"It's a major problem and a major expense and it increases the likelihood of errors," she said.

It's difficult enough for these folks to get it right with a 51 day lead.

[guitfiddlist]

Why don't they save themselves a whole lot of trouble in the near future and just print "Today's Democratic Poll Leader", where the candidate's name should be.

[rudehost]

You dont even need write ins. There were 5 other candidates on the ballot besides blowtorch.

Besides the democratic party has no interest in choice. In 1998 Ron Paul introduced a house bill that would make it easier for third parties to get on the ballot in federal election thereby improving choice. Of roughly 200 democrats in the house only 16 supported it with Marty Meehan having the audacity to claim the bill violated states rights.

link

Choice is now defined as having a democrat on the ballot

[gridlock]

"Choice" is a code word to the baby-killers. When the NJ Supreme Court said they were making this decision in order to preserve "choice", it was an assurance to the pro-Abortion movement in New Jersey that they would do every thing in their power to keep abortion legal.

That is really the only the the 'Rat party stands for anymore. That and tax hikes.

[pepsionice]

The $800k figure is simply printing costs....nothing else.

[OldFriend]

About five states have joined in asking the USSC to overturn this decision. The costs to the counties is going to be monumental.

Ah yes, the democrats, friends of the working man.

[berkeleybeej]

I know California has submitted a brief. What other states have joined?

[Bernard]

They could always get some election judges from Florida to help out. Those elections never finish on time anyway.

[OldFriend]

FNC reporting that these states have joined in the suit against the NSSC........CA, MI, FL, WA, and SC........this includes DEMOCRATS.......

[berkeleybeej]

Hopefully more states will join in and mitigate the Democrats attack on Republicans for pursuing this to the USSC.