I think you are off track here. You would have a heck of a time showing what harm was done. Presumably those who were going to vote for Toricelli will be happy with the Lautenburg choice (at least in comparison to a rascally Republican victory). Those Democrats and independents that werent planning to vote or might have considered voting for Forrester as a protest are happy that they have a semi honest Democrat choice(anyone but Torch). Republicans were never going to vote for either Toricelli or Lautenburg so they werent harmed by the ballot change. Their candidate still remains on the ballot.
What you dont seem to understand is that what the courts, including the SCOTUS care about are the rights of the voters, not the candidates. There is no right to win an election.
I think you are off track here. You would have a heck of a time showing what harm was done.
Were the voters given an alternative choice that they could accept or refuse? No. There's the potential for harm. Let's assume that the voters are okay with the bait and switch. Suppose they end up with a Cadillac instead of a Buick. No doubt it's a more valuable car than the Buick. No doubt the polls show Lutneberg is a better Democrat candidate than Torrcelli. Which one is actually better than the other is a different thing.
Before I get to the major injustice, Forrester and those that supported via monetary donations as well as campaigners that donated their time and effort to the NJ Forester campaign, especially those that donated and worked directly for Forrester against Torrcelli have been harmed. All that money, time and effort was for naught.
What you don't apparently understand without someone else telling you is how voters that donated their money, and or time, and or effort to defeat Torrcelli by contributing to the Forrester campaign's efforts directed at defeating a specific candidate were harmed.
What you dont seem to understand is that what the courts, including the SCOTUS care about are the rights of the voters, not the candidates. There is no right to win an election.
The major point is that the NJ Supreme court usurped the NJ Legislative just powers. The US Supreme Court is on the precipice and must decide where it stands. I have given thorough explanation of that in my original post 135.
What you don't seem to want to address is the major point of injustice. If you suddenly decide to address it, please do so by responding to post 135