Replies

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.

Under no circumstances will there be a special election -- not even if Torch resigns. This is so because his term is up in Jan. and the election to fill the post happens this November. The NJ statute which has been posted and which talks about a special election would apply if Torch's term was up in 2004 and he resigned from office in 2002, but that is not the case. No state law can extend the term of a senate seat, so the current term ends in January -- whether Torch resigns or not.

Now, if he does resign, then the gov. appoints his replacement -- but the replacement only serves til Jan, 2003. I think this stuff about the Gov. could put off the election for a year or whatever was either wishful thinking by the Dems or, more likely, propaganda by them to make their position in court seem more palatable. They'll say, "We don't want to postpone the election, we just want it to be FAIR."