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."
What the Democrats could to is this: Acknowledge that they are stuck with Torricelli on the ballot. Torricelli promises that if he is elected, he will promptly resign. Then, Governor McGreevey could appoint a Democratic replacement with fewer ethical problems. The replacement could serve until the 2004 general election (although another New Jersey statute gives McGreevey the discretion to call a special election sooner). The Democrats, Torricelli, and McGreevey could even announce in advance who the replacement would be. Voters who trust Torricelli to keep his promise and actually resign, and who want a Democrat to hold the seat, could then vote for Torricelli with a clear conscience.
In this instance, the governor could call a special election--but only if Torricelli agrees to resign after being re-elected and that you could trust him to keep his agreement.
In the MO case where Mel Carnahan was elected even though dead, the MO governor announced in advance of the election that Jean Carnahan would serve in Mel's place, if Mel won. So in essence, a vote for Mel was a vote for Jean, even though she wasn't even on the ballot.
In the instance outlined by NRO, a vote for Torch would be a vote for whomever McGreevey said he would appoint to fill Torch's term, if Torch won and then resigned.