[ER_in_OC,CA]

I just skimmed the decision, here are some quick low-lights:

1) Plaintiff (dems) required to pay for the costs of this
2) Plaintiff (dems) required to deposit $800k
3) OVerseas Absentee/military do-overs get priority
4) Attorney General of NJ (a dem) is allowed to take action to avoid voter confusion, including sending out letters (nothing like a letter from the partisan AG reminding voters to vote for Lautenberg!)

KEY REASON FOR DECISION:
"Full Voter Choice" takes precedence over the 51-day rule. Court states that It is in public interest to preserve the two-party system (I expect LIB & GRN parties to blow a gasket on this one)

[Political Junkie Too]

"Full Voter Choice" takes precedence over the 51-day rule.

The voters were choosing -- that's the problem!

-PJ

[michaelt]

I posted this on the other thread too:

According to Eric Shawn on FNC, the NJSC decision basically says that they're doing this to preserve the two-party system - so both parties have a candidate.

Where in the law, where in the Constitution, does it say we have to have a two-party system? And where does it say that one of those parties has to be the Democrat Party?

The reason we have two main parties is because of the way we elect our representatives, not because its written anywhere.

And what about all the races that go uncontested in this country?

These idiot judges really reached. I guess I shouldn't be surprised......

[Smedley]

"Full Voter Choice" takes precedence over the 51-day rule. Court states that It is in public interest to preserve the two-party system (I expect LIB & GRN parties to blow a gasket on this one)

He!!, I'm blowing a gasket. Since when does the "two-party" system usurp statutory law?