The Dems will try the legal argument that whoever replaces Toricelli that he or she will become the incumbent and therein their name automatically qualifies to be placed on the ballot.
Do you think this will work?
The Dems will try the legal argument that whoever replaces Toricelli that he or she will become the incumbent and therein their name automatically qualifies to be placed on the ballot. They'll try. Whether it'll work is up to the courts, but who knows how long this can be stalled by them. All I know is this is going to be another one of those Full Employment for Lawyers kind of deal.
What everyone is missing is that the deadline to replace the TORCH by his party has PASSED Sept 16th.
The only other option I see is if they try to push the election back...or cancel it..
The Dems will try the legal argument that whoever replaces Toricelli that he or she will become the incumbent and therein their name automatically qualifies to be placed on the ballot. Do you think this will work? It's too late to put a new name on the ballot, that passed Sept 17. So, we're looking at a replay of Carnahan's death...vote for Torricelli, and we'll appoint someone you'll like.
I'm pretty sure FReepers were all agreed that, legally, the Carnahan thing had no basis. But because of the already messy election we didn't fight. We'll fight this time.
When this happened wioth Carnahan