"4)(a) In the event that death, resignation, withdrawal, removal, or any other cause or event should cause a party to have a vacancy in nomination which leaves no candidate for an office from such party, the Department of State shall notify the chair of the appropriate state, district, or county political party executive committee of such party; and, within 5 days, the chair shall call a meeting of his or her executive committee to consider designation of a nominee to fill the vacancy. The name of any person so designated shall be submitted to the Department of State within 7 days after notice to the chair in order that the person designated may have his or her name on the ballot of the ensuing general election. If the name of the new nominee is submitted after the certification of results of the preceding primary election, however, the ballots shall not be changed and the former party nominee's name will appear on the ballot. Any ballots cast for the former party nominee will be counted for the person designated by the political party to replace the former party nominee. If there is no opposition to the party nominee, the person designated by the political party to replace the former party nominee will be elected to office at the general election. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "district political party executive committee" means the members of the state executive committee of a political party from those counties comprising the area involving a district office."
It appears you beat me to it.
The only real problem I would notice is that some voters may be a tad unwilling to vote for the child perv, even if they know that they'll be getting someone else. And then there's the obvious fundraising issues. The Dem is self-funding.
I'm sure the Florida legislature meant this to mean no opposition from within the party, but do you suppose a Democrat lawyer can try to muck things up by arguing that the Democrats are opposed to the nominee, and then going to the courts to get a ruling on the meaning of the law, just to delay things past the election?
-PJ
That's not going to help much, it seems to me. If his name is still on the ballot, it will be poison. And that is, apparently, what will happen, according to the law.
Not only has Foley shamed himself, he's pretty much assured that the seat goes to a Democrat. Not good.
If you're indicating that Mark Foley's name will stay on the ballot then I don't see how that rescues the GOP. That strikes me more like disaster for the GOP.
I think the one step removed, will be one step too many for voters. Even if they "know" that a vote for Foley, will be a vote for somebody else, I don't think some voters will actually check the box of an internet trolling homosexual out after 16 year old boys.
Intellectually, they know the difference, but they still have to check Foley's name. The district is lost.
Wow, talk about a hold your nose and vote situation.