Torricelli's dropping out the easy part (legal particulars of Democrats' Torricelli Shuffle)

GANNETT NEWS BUREAU ^ | 10/1/02 | MICHAEL SYMONS

[VRWC_minion]

Samson, in a letter to county clerks, stopped short of ordering them to halt their administration of the election

Either way the seeds are set for election fraud.

[frmrda]

Great post Liz. It really lays it out logically.

What Torch is going to do is ask the court to use its EQUITABLE powers and put someone else's name on the ballot. The court's equitable powers are usually requested when there is no adequate remedy at law.

It's basically like saying "It's not fair", and asking the court, on its own, to make it fair. Here the argument will be that because the law is written as it is (no new candidates on the ballot 51 days before and election) that the voters have no real choice, and that's not fair.

Given that the NJ Judiciary is largely Democrat, I've got a bad feeling.

[b4its2late]

This year, the 51st day before the election was Sept. 15...... Any replacement must be named by the 48th day before the election, Sept. 18 this year....... Clearly, none of those dates can be met by Democrats this fall.

Profound. Since it is October 1st, no September dates can possibly be met. Is this article writer a democrat?

[Puppage]

So, NJ law states that the Govenor can postpone the election (because of the corruption of demcRATS) for 2 years? How's THAT for (I hate this word)DISENFRANCHISEMENT? The people of New Jersey won't even get A CHANCE TO VOTE, now. Where's Jesse?

[billhilly]

Let's hope that these transparent efforts to circumvent the law will galvanize voters in other states into several upsets of democratic candidates.

[MJY1288]

If this is allowed it will poison the elections. If they can replace Torricelli, Why can't we replace Simon with a stronger candidate. The RATS want to make the rules up as they go, IS Al Gore involved in this? :-)

[Coop]

But Torricelli didn't resign, he merely withdrew from this year's election. That concentrates the next step in the process into the state Supreme Court.

He's still got 4-5 days in which to resign, if this particular scenario isn't going how the Democrats would like.

[twigs]

From what I've read (and otherwise I don't know), the NJ Supreme Court is Republican due to Christy Whitman's years as governor. If so, then there's a chance that the rule of law will prevail.

[maica]

State law would have been somewhat clearer if Torricelli had resigned from the Senate.

McGreevey would have named a replacement. The Senate election in five weeks would have selected a candidate who would have taken office immediately -- unless Torricelli had delayed his resignation until Oct. 6 or later, when the rules would have gotten far more complex.

---

All the proof that is needed that the NJ dems are trying to manipulate the process of voting!

We must all use the word FORFEIT every time we hear the word Torricelli.

An immediate resignation would have tipped the balance in the Senate, however briefly, to the Republicans.

I hope average American sometime voters wake up to this openly contemptuous manipulation of our system of electing of representatives in Washington. Those 100 men and women have too much control over our lives as it is.

Hijacking the process cannot stand.

[goldstategop]

The Democrats need to keep the New Jersey seat for if they lose it, it doesn't really matter if they win any other open seats. Let's face, California with Bill Simon headed for defeat looks more and more the exception to a trend that has Democrats running scared. In an off year election, being the party out of power, they should be doing much better. Instead, The Torch blows up in their faces, Carnahan is in trouble in Missouri, and the Wellstone is hanging for dear life. What's a Democrat to do in the face of all this bad news?

[Mo1]

VOTE THE RATS OUT!!

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

[frmrda]

I agree, he will likely resign. At that point I think the Pubbies will be asking the Court to use its equitable powers.

Torch made it quite clear yesterday that he was not resigning, but rather withdrawing. The reason he gave is because he doesn't want the Senate to go Republican.

I think the Dems will come to the legal conclusion that they can't get another name on the ballot and Torch will resign. There is nothing that says the motivation behing the resignation can't be to get another name on teh ballot. That's where the Pubbies go to court and say "Whoa, wait a minute. His resignation is being done solely to ensure his own parties victory. Look, he can't do through the back door what he couldn't do through the front"

To which the Court's response (and regrettably rightfully so)is "So what? The law doesn't say 'You can only have a special election if the resignation is not politically motivated'"

Here it appears (and again I haven't looked closely at the "resignation" rules as they relate to special elections and getting someone's name on the ballot), but from what little I have read the Dems would be on much better legal ground if the Torch resigns.

[randita]

One question I hope comes into play is:

Was there anything preventing Torricelli from withdrawing from the race in time for the deadlines for a replacement candidate to be met? And the answer to that is NO.

Nothing new has happened in the past few weeks except that Chang's testimony was made public and Torch started plummeting in the polls.

The argument that "voters should have a choice" is bunk. They still do have a choice. If by some quirk, Torch is elected in Nov., do you really think he wouldn't withdraw his withdrawal?

[Anthony Bruni]

Has anyone considered the possibility that the Dems expect to be rebuffed in court? Maybe then Torri says "I _tried_ to step aside but they wouldn't let me." In other words, could this just be an effort to cleanse him and show what a stand-up guy he really is? Pretty far-fetched maybe, but not impossible.

[alnick]

Here the argument will be that because the law is written as it is (no new candidates on the ballot 51 days before and election) that the voters have no real choice, and that's not fair.

Sure the voters have a choice. If the dems were honorable, they'd start a write-in campaign ASAP for their candidate of choice rather than to try to break the law.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

From a legal perspective, you are right of course. From a PR perspective it's still got to be a nightmare scenario for the Dems. It must be painful for them to watch the implosion of their own party. But then maybe not, for I doubt that they realize that it is through their own idiocy that they are killing themselves.

[randita]

Here it appears (and again I haven't looked closely at the "resignation" rules as they relate to special elections and getting someone's name on the ballot), but from what little I have read the Dems would be on much better legal ground if the Torch resigns.

Here's where it's fuzzy for me. Hopefully, it will be clarified. If Torch resigns and a replacement is appointed, that replacement will only serve until January, at which time the duly elected Senator would take the seat. I don't know that a special election is valid in that case. Consider this: what if Torch were not even on the ballot in Nov. and he resigned. Then McGreevey appoints a replacement (which is not someone on the ballot). Wouldn't the person (R or D) who is elected in Nov. take over the seat in Jan.? There would be no special election in that case.

Isn't this scenario somewhat the same? It would penalize Forrester mightily if he has to run 2 campaigns against 2 different Democrats for the seat.

I will be happy to have this clarified for me.

[frmrda]

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just predicting what the argument is going to be. They will say that "reality" dictates that a write in candidate is not a "choice". They will also use the argument that a write-in campaign would create chaos, as it will take forever to count write ins, and "interpret" the "voters intent" (i.e. what happens if a name is badly misspelled, or what about the poor immigrants who can't write in English)