Replies

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!

I read the statute and it is. It does read as more of a guideline. If you look at the C-Span oral arguments, even the attorney for Forrestor kinda conceded this, but make the point -- which if the Court weren't so leftist would be the winning point -- that the highest priority in balancing among competing interests is not disenfranchising the military. (The Quinn case predates the modern law and there were other reasons not to permit that guy on the ballot according to their analysis of the case. Whatever.)

I'm just saying the NJ law -- unlike Florida law -- isn't mandatory in langauge. As a technical matter of legal craft, it's not quite what Fox news has been saying all day it is.

Now, that doesn't mean Forrestor shouldn't fight it. That will help to galvanize his Republican base and get out the vote big time. And I obviously really really hope he wins.