02-10-2002 21:39									#61
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Al Gore discovered those hidden clauses in 2000. Don't you remember?

	02-10-2002 22:21									#62
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I don't think we should dwell on the legalisms and should focus on what is better for the people of New Jersey. In this sense, I agree with the Dems that having a warm body on the ballot gives them more choice. 5 weeks is plenty to run a campaign fairly and squarely.

But the ballots already sent out is a big issue. The election has already started. It's almost as if he dropped out on election day.

	03-10-2002 04:31									#63
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Why shouldnt they switch if they're losing? Clearly this action goes against the law, the only question is whether its constitutional to deprive the voters of a choice of candidates. Surely, the knowledgeable voters of NJ will be able to decide who they prefer to have represent them based upon the merits of the candidates not upon how long they've been campaigning.

Replacing the candidate disinfranchises the voters in the primary who voted for him to be their candidate.

Also, you have the constitutional right to vote, not to have a choice of candidates. There are many elections where only one candidate is on the ballot. I have even seen elections for township offices that had no candidates.

	03-10-2002 05:04									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

The NJ SC just ruled in favor of the Democrats. I understand that the Republicans are going to federal court...

	03-10-2002 05:06									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Swissy Replacing the candidate disinfranchises the voters in the primary who voted for him to be their candidate. Also, you have the constitutional right to vote, not to have a choice of candidates. There are many elections where only one candidate is on the ballot. I have even seen elections for township offices that had no candidates.

There are 4 candidates on the NJ ballot even without Toricelli. Of course the Democrats get special consideration in New Jersey

	03-10-2002 05:07									#66
	Remove this text

Isn't running to Federal Court to circumvent State Court rulings something States Rights-loving Republicans should abhor?

Oh wait, they did that in Florida, too...

	03-10-2002 05:09									#67
	Increase Your PM Length

By the way, two of the justices contributed to the campaign of Toricelli. I am sure they were not biased however...

	03-10-2002 05:10									#68
	Remove this text

Two of the justices were also Republicans, and one was Independent. It was a unanimous decision.

	03-10-2002 05:11									#69
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Don't you think that the two who contributed to Torricelli's campaign should have recused themselves?

	03-10-2002 05:17									#70
	Got spare money?

Shouldn't Scalia have excused himself from Gore v. Bush? He set a nice precedent.

	03-10-2002 05:22									#71
	Put an end to popups!

Do two wrongs equal a right now? And do primary election mean anything now? And do any statutary limits mean anything now? Anyway here is the decision:

This matter having been initiated by plaintiffs filing a
verified complaint and order to show cause in the Superior
Court, Law Division, Middlesex County, on September 30, 2002, which complaint sought the following relief:

1. An injunction prohibiting the inclusion on the general
election ballot for November 5, 2002, of the name of Robert G. Torricelli as a Democratic Party candidate for the office of United States Senator;

2. A declaration that the New Jersey Democratic State
Committee may forthwith proceed to select a duly qualified
candidate to fill the vacancy created by the withdrawal of
Robert G. Torricelli;

3. The removal of the name of Robert G. Torricelli from
the general election ballot and its replacement with the name of the candidate selected by the New Jersey Democratic State Committee;

4. The printing of the general election ballots with the
substitution of the new candidate's name for that of Robert G. Torricelli;

5. A direction to defendant County Clerks that the
substitution of the new candidate's name for that of Robert G. Torricelli is to be made on all ballots, whether absentee, military, provisional, emergency, voting machine, ballot card, or otherwise; and

6. A direction to defendant County Clerks that all general
election ballots are to be printed with the name of the new
candidate selected by the Democratic State Committee;
And plaintiffs having contemporaneously filed a motion with
the Court seeking the direct certification of the matter;
And the Superior Court, Law Division, Middlesex County,
having issued an Order to Show Cause on October 1, 2002, that, inter alia, enjoined the printing of all ballots for the general election; And the Court having determined on October 1, 2002, that it should certify the matter directly and conduct oral arguments on October 2, 2002; And the Court having also continued the stay of the printing of ballots pending its further Order; 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 good cause appearing;

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs' application for the removal
from the ballot for the general election of November 5, 2002, of the name of Robert G. Torricelli as a candidate for the position of United States Senator is granted; and it is further ORDERED that the name of candidate duly selected by the Democratic State Committee shall replace that of Robert G. Torricelli on the ballot; and it is further ORDERED that the preparation of revised ballots by the County Clerks shall proceed forthwith under the direction of the Attorney General of New Jersey and the supervision of Superior Court Judge Linda R. Feinberg, A.J.S.C. (Mercer County) who is empowered by this Order to exercise statewide jurisdiction over this process; and it is further ORDERED that the parties shall meet with Judge Feinberg on Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 11:00 a.m. in the Mercer County Civil Courthouse, Trenton, to expedite the implementation of this Order; and it is further

ORDERED that military and overseas ballots shall be given
precedence in preparation and mailing; and it is further

ORDERED that all of the costs related to the preparation
and, when necessary, the mailing of revised ballots that are the subject of this Order shall be borne by plaintiffs and paid under the supervision of Judge Feinberg; and it is further

ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall deposit into the Superior
Court Trust Fund $800,000, or such other sum as Judge Feinberg may find to be necessary and appropriate to meet the costs of implementing this Order, said deposit to be made in full or in such installments as Judge Feinberg shall determine, beginning no later than Friday, October 4, 2002; and it is further

ORDERED that the Attorney General of New Jersey shall
oversee the election activities described in the preceding
paragraphs pursuant to his authority as the chief election
official of the State of New Jersey, and he shall report to
Judge Feinberg on his activities in that capacity pursuant to this Order; and it is further

ORDERED that the Attorney General shall take all steps
necessary to avoid voter confusion, including, but not limited to, the preparation of an explanatory letter to all voters to whom a revised ballot has been sent; and it is further

ORDERED that the schedule for the mailing of revised
ballots provided for by this Order shall be set by Judge
Feinberg in a manner that assures that ballots can be completed and returned in time for the November 5, 2002, general election.

WITNESS, the Honorable Deborah T. Poritz, Chief Justice, at
Trenton, this 2nd day of October, 2002.
Clerk of the Supreme Court,
/s/Stephen W. Townsend, Esq.
Chief Justice Poritz and Justices Coleman, Long, Verniero,
LaVecchia, Zazzali, and Albin join in the Court's Order.

	03-10-2002 05:28									#72
	Get a bigger avatar today!

It looks like the shoe is on the other foot now and certain people are crying foul. Go figure.

	03-10-2002 05:35									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

No the shoe is on the same foot. Democrats are still twisting the law when they lose.

	03-10-2002 05:53									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

A few problems I see with the decision off hand:



NJ Democrat primary voters have been ignored. The candidate they voted for is not going to be the one on the ballot.

Forrester has lost millions in campaign donations running against the candidate he had every legal right to expect to oppose.

GOP donors have lost their chance to donate for a run against Lautenberg.


The overseas voters whose already-cast ballots have just been invalidated and confusion will be the result of having to cancel their previous ballots and re-mailing new ballots.


Hundreds of candidates who cannot enter into the races where some candidate is unopposed, as this court has just allowed Lautenberg to do. This is a special exception to a large party because of their influence and ability to pay $800,000.

The legislature of NJ whose bright-line rules have just been ignored so that an election can be unjustly set-up.

Third-party candidates who will not get the same treatment, since this was decided to "preserve" some 'two-party system' that SCONJ is trying to enforce, but doesn't actually exist.



the court ruled that this decision was meant was to preserve the two-party system, even though this very race has candidates from 5 parties!

The court has decided that the legislatively set limit of 51 days is arbitrary, yet they are setting their own new arbitrary limit.

Two of the Justices voting on this have donated to Torricelli's campaigns in the past, and one of those two has also donated to Lautenberg... yet they did not even mention the possibility of recusing themselves!!

	03-10-2002 06:01									#75
	Got spare money?

quote: I don't think we should dwell on the legalisms and should focus on what is better for the people of New Jersey. In this sense, I agree with the Dems that having a warm body on the ballot gives them more choice. 5 weeks is plenty to run a campaign fairly and squarely.

Shouldn't that be something for the legislature to decide? I don't particularly like courts making laws, even though according to our common law tradition they have.

And doesn't anyone find this a bit scary:

quote: 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

	03-10-2002 06:05									#76
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Where do they get the precedent for the "two party" thing?

	03-10-2002 06:10									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by rah 51 days is not unreasonable. Think of those sailors on Subs at sea. It might take awhile to get them ballots and get them back.

Hey we can have a diver, dive down to the Sub. Of course he would have to go more than a hundred feet to reach the Sub.

	03-10-2002 06:12									#78
	Support Apolyton

Lincoln, apparently:

Kilmurray v. Gilfert, 10 N.J. 435, 441 (1952)

Unfortunetly, I don't have it in front of me .

	03-10-2002 06:13									#79
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

That should make people like Che happy, I mean the two party system and all.

	03-10-2002 06:42									#80
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

This should be interesting now. Lautenburg was not the NJ Dems first choice, more like the fourth. And it isn't like Lautenburg doesn't come with some excess bagage. Lautenburg didn't run after he got that ammendment tacked on to the gun control act, the one that makes it a Federal crime to have a gun if you have been convicted of a domestic violence misdermeanor. There is no official uses exemption (law enforcement and military). I don't expect him to get the NJ Policemen assoc endorsement anytime soon.

	03-10-2002 06:50									#81
	Inflate your Upload Space

I don't care about the primary voters being disenfranchised

that is between them and the democratic leadership

I do see a problem with some ballots already being mailed out

there goes a good chance for a third party though (if Torch would withdraw and so the dems would vote for a third party)

Jon Miller

	03-10-2002 11:15									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

This seems like a good outcome for the voters--they will get to make a choice. No injustice is done in that.

And don't underestimate Forrester. If I were him, I would drop the appeal. Say some appropriately high-minded stuff (good practice for being a senator ), and collect the Senate seat. Edit: It looks like he's making the mistake of ratcheting up the rhetoric, from some quotes attributed to him.

"Shouldn't that be something for the legislature to decide? I don't particularly like courts making laws, even though according to our common law tradition they have."

They did decide. They put rules in place to have an orderly and fair election. The justices apparently decided that their intent was not harmed in this instance.

Last edited by DanS on 03-10-2002 at 12:07

	03-10-2002 12:35									#83
	Got spare money?

"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..."



You made that up. Satire. Has to be satire. Even a US court can't be that silly.

Or ?

	03-10-2002 12:51									#84
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I have no doubt that the election laws are set up to preserve the two-party system.

I also have no doubt that that has nothing to do with the constitutionality of those laws.

	03-10-2002 18:31									#85
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Roland "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..." You made that up. Satire. Has to be satire. Even a US court can't be that silly. Or ?

What are you talking about? We have some of the best courts that money can buy!

Anyway I agree with Dan. It is a mistake for the Pubs to fight this in the federal courts (except as a matter or overturning this precident in the future). This present situation should be allowed to stand as it is. Let the best (or richest) man win!

If anyone heard the oral arguments I think that they would agree that the best arguments came form the 3rd party candidates. Of course their voices are drowned out in the struggle for power by the two major parties. The courts are corrupt, pure and simple. People are supposed to run for office, not parties. The Green candidate said something quite true: "What if we were the ones fighting to change candidates at this late date, would we be heard by this court?" The answer is of course, no, they are not Democrats or Republicans...

	03-10-2002 18:34									#86
	Tired of ads?

dp

	03-10-2002 18:37									#87
	Got spare money?

"We have some of the best courts that money can buy!"

I'd expect the best not to be so blatantly corrupt (emphasis on blatantly).

	03-10-2002 18:38									#88
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

He did say they were the best courts money can buy, didn't he?

	03-10-2002 18:40									#89
	Put an end to popups!

It is interesting that the Democratic party confidently announced their new candidate before this was even heard by the court even though it was in obvious contradiction to the present law.

	03-10-2002 18:43									#90
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui He did say they were the best courts money can buy, didn't he?

Roland's too bitter now to appreciate sarcasm.