[FreeTheHostages]

Ok, you all are going to kill me but I read the statute and it's not clear that this is the wrong result. As to US Supreme Court review, more deference is given to states for US Senator elections. I doubt it will go to US Supreme Court.

If they're smart, the Republicans in charge of this will try US district court on equal protection.

But -- go ahead and accuse me of being a liberal, I'm *not* -- this actually isn't like Florida at all. In this case, the statute IS vague and the highest court in the state DOES have the right to construe it liberally (pun alert) under the applicable state law. Y'all will kill me, but I'm not going to get excited about this one. It's sufficiently solid from a legal perspective that I doubt it can be undone.

[edsheppa]

... I read the statute and it's not clear that this is the wrong result.

In the interest of the voters of NJ having the greatest scope for public participation in the electoral process, how do I go about getting my name on the ballot?

Sure, I'm not from NJ and probably don't meet a bunch of other requirements, but surely expand the scope for public participation outweighs all those petty and arbitrary requirements - mere whims of the legislature.

Wait, why not a class action suit to get everyone's name on the ballot? OK, maybe that's just not practical. Instead we'll just have a blank ballot - write-in candidates only. Maybe we can even leave off the position. Voters can make up the position and the candidate.

[Political Junkie Too]

...it's not clear that this is the wrong result.

This has the effect of essentially banning landslide elections.

-PJ

[Mute]

Care to elaborate on why the statute is vague? I'm not a lawyer, but the intent seems clear to me. If the "51 day" clause is not a prohibition, then why was it included? What other purpose could it serve?

[CharacterCounts]

Interesting. This very same court dealt with this very same satute a year ago and did not find anything vague about the statute whatsoever. They even went so far as to say that the court must enforce the law (this very same statute) in full and could not supplant their own opinion because it was the job of the legislature to set deadlines, etc.

Of course last year it was a Rebublican making the request, so that makes all of the difference in the worls.

[WOSG]

How can you say the statute is unclear? have you looked at National Review Online and read the piece by David Kopel that mentions this: The only "unusual circumstances" are that Torricelli's poll numbers are terrible. New Jersey law already has precedent for such an issue. In Tomasin v. Quinn, 376 A.2d 233 ( N.J. Superior Court, Law Division, 1977), a candidate for county sheriff withdrew, and another man wanted to take his place on the ballot. The court refused.

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!