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
It says you can replace a candidate with this procedure up to 51 days before the election. What isn't clear about that?
You are wrong about Florida being clearer. Florida's election statutes were confusing and in conflict with each other, and more than likely the whole case down there was argued and decided on the wrong statute. To hold Florida as an example of being clear law and this as not, that's just bizarre.