[mlo]

If Lautenberg wins, the Court will have painted itself into a corner. If they rule for Forrester, what is the remedy? Does the US SC dare issue an Order throwing out a Member of the Senate? To avoid embarrassing themselves, the Court would be unlikely to take the case in that situation.

Regarding remedy, if the US Supreme Court ruled for Forrester after Lautenburg won I would think they'd remand the case to the NJ Supreme Court with instructions on how to read the law. It's conceivable that the NJ Court would be left with no option but to invalidate the Senate election. Should that happen NJ law says:

New Jersey Permanent Statutes

TITLE 19 ELECTIONS

19:3-23. Vacation of office when nomination or election void

When the nomination or election of a person to public office within this State or any of its political subdivisions shall have been declared null and void, such person shall remove or be removed from such office.

19:3-25. What constitutes vacancy

When a person shall remove or be removed from office because his nomination or election thereto has been declared null and void, such office shall be deemed to be vacant.

[Lurking Libertarian]

That New Jersey statute is trumped in the case of U.S. Senators by the U.S. Constitution, Art. I, section 5, cl. 1: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members."

[Congressman Billybob]

The New Jersey statute you cite, about voiding an election and declaring the office vacant, would certainly apply to the election of the Dogcatcher in Teaneck. However, because the US Constitution gives the Senate power over the "election" of its own Members, the Constitution trumps the law of New Jersey.

Therefore, straightening this out, if the US SC declares after the fact that Lautenberg should not have been on the ballot but Lautenberg wins, will be up to the Senate.

Billybob

[aristeides]

Under NJ law, Senate office vacant would mean governor appoints replacement and schedules special election, right?

[Dave S]

Regarding remedy, if the US Supreme Court ruled for Forrester after Lautenburg won I would think they'd remand the case to the NJ Supreme Court with instructions on how to read the law. It's conceivable that the NJ Court would be left with no option but to invalidate the Senate election. Should that happen NJ law says:

But that means a special election. And if Forrester cant beat Lautenburg this November, why would he able to in February or April. The Court is not going to hand the election to Forrester. He has to win it at some point.

[randita]

It's conceivable that the NJ Court would be left with no option but to invalidate the Senate election.

Then what would happen--a special election before the new Senate is seated in January? That would mean that Forrester would have to run yet another race against possibly another candidate. Ugh.

I doubt if NJ Dems had a couple of months to line their ducks up, that they'd choose Lautenberg to run in that special election.

If Forrester doesn't win, no matter what happens afterward--it seems it would be grossly unfair to him.