Replies

Some of my best arguments for supporting a deadline have to do with an orderly election.

1. Advance time gives the electorate and critics time to properly evaluate a candidate and ferret out information that is hidden.

2. Advance time gives the towns to prepare proper ballots.

3. Advance time also gives the candidates and the electorate time to compare and contrast their posistions on issues.

4. Finally, a deadline provides a cutoff from allowing mass chaos on who is to be a candidate. If this deadline doesn't apply to the Democrats than by extension every other citizen who wishes to be placed on the ballot should have that right up until the day of the election.After all, the people have the right to a choice, don't they ?

If this deadline doesn't apply to the Democrats than by extension every other citizen who wishes to be placed on the ballot should have that right up until the day of the election.

Good point.

My biggest concern with setting this precedent is the huge advantage it would give them when the new campaign laws kick into effect. As long as they wait until they are into the 60 day period before the elections, only the media will be allowed to comment on the candidate. If the candidate refuses to debate (no time now, you know), then there is no way for the pubbies to counter the candidate.

Top 7 reasons to shut the Dems down:

1. Torch is not sick or otherwise physically unable to run.

2. The Dems knew he was dirty, they had full access to files for Ethics Committee hearing.

3. Torch knew he was dirty.

4. Ballots have been printed.

5. Absentee ballots have been mailed.

6. Military ballots have been mailed.

7. There are plenty of other candidates, Greens, Libertarians, etc.

As my Daddy always said, bad planning on the Dems part does not constitute an emergency on the part of the court.

If this deadline doesn't apply to the Democrats than by extension every other citizen who wishes to be placed on the ballot should have that right up until the day of the election.

Bingo. The Repubs are (not very competently, yet) starting to make this same argument. See the Newark Star-Ledger at http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1033563011143130.xml:
Tom Wilson, a political strategist who was a spokesman for Whitman and former acting Gov. Donald DiFrancesco...
said Torricelli's departure has fanned some intriguing private speculation among Republicans. Some, he said, believe that if Democrats are allowed to replace Torricelli with a well-known candidate like Lautenberg, Republicans should consider responding in kind with someone like Kean.

#4 is the most concise point. I would add the following:

If the court supports the Democratic Party's bid to have a new candidate placed on the ballot, it will have effectively decided that the nomination of candidates by political parties is unconstitutional because political parties clearly cannot be trusted to respect the rights of voters. What this means, in essence, is that every election in the state of New Jersey becomes an open election in which anyone who can garner 5,000 signatures (or one signature, if the court's ruling is interpreted literally) can be placed on the ballot.

People still have a choice between candidates from the two major parties. They can vote Republican for Forrester or they can vote Democratic for Torricelli. It just so happens that Torricelli is losing, but that should not be against the law.

There is absolutely nothing keeping Torricelli from fulfilling his committment to the Democratic Party and the people of New Jersey except for the fact that he does not want to. Well, that's just to bad for Robert Torricelli. He does not have that choice.

The court action that infringes least upon the rights of the people is to deny this one person the right to withdraw his name from the ballot. Then everybody else is still whole. Everybody still has the right to vote for either major party or whomever they want via write-in.

Since Robert Torricelli has made repeated committments to run for Senator, raised and spent millions of dollars based on his promise to run for Senator, and stated in hundreds of public forums that he intends to run for Senator, it seems reasonable that the court would require him to honor his pledge and actually run for Senator.

This is the least intrusive option for the NJ Supreme Court and should be an absolute no-brainer. Plus, it has the added advantage of being in compliance with NJ Law.