Posted on 10/02/2002 2:57:31 PM PDT by Liz
Pubbies may try for stay in circuit court.
I dont see how the statute is vague at all and how the court could contradict earlier rulings so breezily ... a clear hint is the court making the Democrats redo ballots and pay for that --- where is that in the 'electoral scheme'? Nowhere that I saw!
But...going forward....if you try to pry the emotional aspect out of this ( I know it's hard ) , remember that had Torch withdrawn with 52 days out, we'd still be in the same position that we're in now and it would have been perfectly legal and proper. It's a 20 day difference ...and we'd have to retool anyway. So....let's bring it on!!!!
For starters....Laughingberg voted against the Gulf War....let's start with that....and drag the traitorous Democrat hacks that went to Baghdad into it as a symbol of what that party really is all about......
I wonder why my blood pressure meds are not working?
The Case summary Docket: A-67-94 Date:: 12-Apr-1995 Parties:: IN THE MATTER OF THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON MAY 10, 1994, FOR THREE POSITIONS ON THE SPARTA TOWNSHIP COUNCIL Summary In an electronically-tabulated election conducted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 19:53A-5e, a write-in vote that is not punched in the provided location is invalid.
You see, I agree with you 100%. It is because of this that I think that NOW is the time to use their own opinion against them. The legal gymnastics will be entertaining, and the havoc that this SCONJ opinion will cause is best felt NOW while the ink hasn't dried yet. This will show the public the dangers of judicial activism and the bias of the court.
So what's not to like!
BTW, the games played to have Kirk beat the hispanic hopeful Victor Morales are another shameful example of Dems tricks. Victor was the 'wrong' minority for the ticket. A bunch of crook and quota-mongers they are, eh?
You should know already that Liberals feel that way ... they are perfectly happy to have the courts ram down school busing, funding for illegal immigrants, forcing state to overturn parental notification in case of abortions, etc. In other words, they are happy to subvert Democratic wishes to achieve their ends.
It is pretty much the WHOLE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE ACLU IN A NUTSHELL. Get the courts to do what the people themselves wont.
In election cases (and others) that are "capable of repetition," the Court will keep and decide the present case, rather than be faced with the same case for different candidates in the future, being forced then to decide the case on a hurry-up basis.
This is a well-known, well-established part of Supreme Court jurisprudence in election law cases. I have used this rule several times before, and will use it again.
Congressman Billybob
Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=216850&Depth=2&depth=2&expandheadings=on&headingswithhits=on&hitsperheading=on&infobase=statutes.nfo&record={8907}&softpage=Doc_Frame_PG42
19:13-18. In general
When a person so declines his nomination, or if a petition or certificate of nomination, or if any nomination, be insufficient or inoperative, or if a nominee shall die, or for any reason vacate his nomination, the vacancy so occasioned may be filled in the manner outlined in the succeeding sections.
19:13-19. Nomination of successor
If the candidate vacating the nomination was nominated directly by petition his successor shall be nominated in the same manner by direct petition, which new petition of nomination must be filed with the Secretary of State or county clerk, as the case may require, not later than 54 days before the day of election whereat such candidate is to be voted for.
Amended by L. 1942, c. 50, p. 278, s. 3; L. 1985, c. 92, s. 13, eff. March 26, 1985.
19:13-20. Vacancy procedure
19:13-20. In the event of a vacancy, howsoever caused, among candidates nominated at primaries, which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election, or in the event of inability to select a candidate because of a tie vote at such primary, a candidate shall be selected in the following manner:
a. (1) In the case of an office to be filled by the voters of the entire State, the candidate shall be selected by the State committee of the political party wherein such vacancy has occurred.
(2) In the case of an office to be filled by the voters of a single and entire county, the candidate shall be selected by the county committee in such county of the political party wherein such vacancy has occurred.
(3) In the case of an office to be filled by the voters of a portion of the State comprising all or part of two or more counties, the candidate shall be selected by those members of the county committees of the party wherein the vacancy has occurred who represent those portions of the respective counties which are comprised in the district from which the candidate is to be elected.
(4) In the case of an office to be filled by the voters of a portion of a single county, the candidate shall be selected by those members of the county committee of the party wherein the vacancy has occurred who represent those portions of the county which are comprised in the district from which the candidate is to be elected.
At any meeting held for the selection of a candidate under this subsection, a majority of the persons eligible to vote thereat shall be required to be present for the conduct of any business, and no person shall be entitled to vote at that meeting who is appointed to the State committee or county committee after the seventh day preceding the date of the meeting.
In the case of a meeting held to select a candidate for other than a Statewide office, the chairman of the meeting shall be chosen by majority vote of the persons present and entitled to vote thereat. The chairman so chosen may propose rules to govern the determination of credentials and the procedures under which the meeting shall be conducted, and those rules shall be adopted upon a majority vote of the persons entitled to vote upon the selection. If a majority vote is not obtained for those rules, the delegates shall determine credentials and conduct the business of the meeting under such other rules as may be adopted by a majority vote. All contested votes taken at the selection meeting shall be by secret ballot.
b. (1) Whenever in accordance with subsection a. of this section members of two or more county committees are empowered to select a candidate to fill a vacancy, it shall be the responsibility of the chairmen of said county committees, acting jointly not later in any case than the seventh day following the occurrence of the vacancy, to give notice to each of the members of their respective committees who are so empowered of the date, time and place of the meeting at which the selection will be made, that meeting to be held at least one day following the date on which the notice is given.
(2) Whenever in accordance with the provisions of subsection a. of this section members of a county committee are empowered to select a candidate to fill a vacancy, it shall be the responsibility of the chairman of such county committee, not later in any case than the seventh day following the occurrence of the vacancy, to give notice to each of the members of the committee who are so empowered of the date, time and place of the meeting at which the selection will be made, that meeting to be held at least one day following the date on which the notice is given.
(3) A county committee chairman or chairmen who call a meeting pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection shall not be entitled to vote upon the selection of a candidate at such meeting unless he or they are so entitled pursuant to subsection a.
(4) Whenever in accordance with the provisions of subsection a. of this section the State committee of a political party is empowered to select a candidate to fill a vacancy, it shall be the responsibility of the chairman of that State committee to give notice to each of the members of the committee of the date, time and place of the meeting at which the selection will be made, that meeting to be held at least one day following the date on which the notice is given.
c. Whenever a selection is to be made pursuant to this section to fill a vacancy resulting from inability to select a candidate because of a tie vote at a primary election, the selection shall be made from among those who have thus received the same number of votes at the primary.
d. A selection made pursuant to this section shall be made not later than the 48th day preceding the date of the general election, and a statement of such selection shall be filed with the Secretary of State or the appropriate county clerk, as the case may be, not later than said 48th day, and in the following manner:
(1) A selection made by a State committee of political party shall be certified to the Secretary of State by the State chairman of the political party.
(2) A selection made by a county committee of a political party, or a portion of the members thereof, shall be certified to the county clerk of the county by the county chairman of such political party; except that when such selection is of a candidate for the Senate or General Assembly or the United States House of Representatives the county chairman shall certify the selection to the State chairman of such political party, who shall certify the same to the Secretary of State.
(3) A selection made by members of two or more county committees of a political party acting jointly shall be certified by the chairmen of said committees, acting jointly, to the State chairman of such political party, who shall certify the same to the Secretary of State.
e. A statement filed pursuant to subsection d. of this section shall state the residence and post office address of the person so selected, and shall certify that the person so selected is qualified under the laws of this State to be a candidate for such office, and is a member of the political party filling the vacancy. Accompanying the statement the person endorsed therein shall file a certificate stating that he is qualified under the laws of this State to be a candidate for the office mentioned in the statement, that he consents to stand as a candidate at the ensuing general election and that he is a member of the political party named in said statement, and further that he is not a member of, or identified with, any other political party or any political organization espousing the cause of candidates of any other political party, to which shall be annexed the oath of allegiance prescribed in R.S. 41:1-1 duly taken and subscribed by him before an officer authorized to take oaths in this State. The person so selected shall be the candidate of the party for such office at the ensuing general election.
Amended 1942,c.50,s.4; 1945,c.263; 1948,c.261; 1949,c.24,ss.4,12; 1972,c.181,s.1; 1981,c.346,s.1; 1985,c.92,s.14; 1988,c.126,s.1.
Help Forrester! Opposition Research on Lautenberg!!
Every little bit helps!
I am truly baffled by your reponse. if not to you, the statute is clear to ME. It is why I POSTED it!! The language is clear about the situations in which a vacancy can lead to a substitution on the ballot, and the deadlines for those cases. Remember, the flaw (or deliberate ploy) in the NJ supremes ruling is this assertion about 'vacancies' - this is not about vacancies, this is about ADDING a name to the ballot AFTER a nomination has been declined. If the court did nothing there would *still be* a democrat running. And the ruling's flawed basis is clear: The Justices chose to ignore legislative intent and the eletoral scheme. Sure, they had excuses for doing it, spoon-fed by the Torch/McCreevy team, but that is what happened. CLEARLY. They invented new law.
Want the truth? Go look up the case I cited, Thomasin v. Quinn, which NRO contributor says the court refused to change names on ballots in a simila case ... then come back and tell me if it contradicts the ruling handed out today or not. NRO legal beagle says it does, but I cant access it since I dont have westlaw. Go look at my earlier response -- a quote from an earlier ruling that made clear the precedent cited today does *not* permit them to go outside bounds of the electoral scheme contemplated by the legislature. And show me where this electoral scheme has any statutory authority for ballot substitution outside the parameters of those given in NJ 19:13-18 etc. where is the NJ Supremes' authority to invent this exception except judicial fiat???
As Gore would say: There is no controlling legal authority
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.