Replies

From the explanation portion of the opinion:

=============

And the Court having considered the record before it, having reviewed the submissions of the parties, and having heard the argument of counsel;

And the Court having concluded that the central question before it is whether the dual interests of full voter choice and the orderly administration of an election can be effectuated if the relief requested by plaintiffs were to be granted;

And the Court being of the view that

[it] is in the public interest and the general intent of the election laws to preserve the two-party system and to submit to the electorate a ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties as well as of all other qualifying parties and groups. Kilmurray v. Gilfert, 10 N.J. 435, 441 (1952);

And the Court remaining of the view that the election statutes should be liberally construed

to allow the greatest scope for public participation in the electoral process, to allow candidates to get on the ballot, to allow parties to put their candidates on the ballot, and most importantly, to allow the voters a choice on Election Day. Catania v. Haberle, 123 N.J. 438, 448;

And the Court having determined that N.J.S.A. 19:13-20 does not preclude the possibility of a vacancy occurring within fifty-one days of the general election;

And the Court having concluded that the equitable relief sought herein is not inconsistent with the precedent of this Court and the terms of the statute and that the Court should invoke its equitable powers in favor of a full and fair ballot choice for the voters of New Jersey;

And the Court having determined that the interests of justice require the immediate issuance of an Order disposition with the Court's opinion to follow in due course;

And the Court remaining of the view that the election statutes should be liberally construed to allow the greatest scope for public participation in the electoral process, to allow candidates to get on the ballot, to allow parties to put their candidates on the ballot, and most importantly, to allow the voters a choice on Election Day. Catania v. Haberle, 123 N.J. 438, 448;

The voters have FULL choice... it's called a write-in vote. This is about promoting one party's chances in an election by subverting the primary election results. NJ Democrats are having their choice removed from the ballot. Even if the Torch decides he doesn't want to run anymore (a curious thought considering the effort that goes in to campaigning and winning a primary election), the voters chose who they wanted, and should be allowed to continue to support that choice in the full election. The name they choose gets the special recognition of being written on the ballot. Any other name must be written in.

The Democrat leaders want this policy changed so that the name THEY prefer will be promoted above all others, not the name the people want.