[Political Junkie Too]

Expect to hear the RATS yammering this talking point 'til your ears bleed!

Then we yammer back "What about Patsy Mink in Hawaii?"

-PJ

[Peach]

I do expect GOP to scream loud and often, but so far, nothing. They should have been ready for this with prepared text. The GOP doesn't fight loud or hard enough. This seems like such momentous news that I can't believe the networks are even discussing anything else.

[WOSG]

Here is a quote from a 1995 ruling that contradicts their ruling for today:

IN THE MATTER OF THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON MAY 10, 1994, FOR THREE POSITIONS ON THE SPARTA TOWNSHIP COUNCIL

In analyzing section 19:53A:5e(2), as when construing all statutes, our goal is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature. Lesniak v. Budzash, 133 N.J. 1, 8 (1993). Because the regulation of elections is exclusively a legislative matter, courts, even when they question the wisdom of legislation, must respect the legislative scheme. Sharrock v. Keansburg, 15 N.J. Super. 11, 16-17 (App. Div. 1951). Tempering that respect is the canon of statutory construction that courts should construe liberally election laws to avoid depriving voters of the right to vote. Kilmurray v. Gilfert, 10 N.J. 435, 440 (1952). Courts construe election laws liberally, however, not to achieve goals of their own but to effectuate the underlying legislative purpose.

It is clear that they CANNOT and SHOULD NOT undermine the 'electoral scheme' and should reflect the "underlying legislative purpose'. They have not done that here. They chose to ignore the legislative purpose and constructed a 'remedy' (have the Democrats pay for new ballots) that doesnt exist in the electoral scheme.