New Jersey Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Dems Replacing 'Torch' on Ballot

Fox News ^ | October 2, 2002 | Eric Shawn and Carl Cameron and The Associated Press

[afuturegovernor]

TRENTON, N.J.

[Reaganesque]

Why appeal the decision? Run on it. The Democrats, faced with trying to re-elect a law breaking Senator, resorts to law breaking to get him replaced. The tv ads write themselves.

[Always Right]

This is an election to the US Senate not the state Senate. The requirements, method of election, and length of term of US Senators is specified in the United States Constitution. Not only is this a federal issue, it is one of the most important issues that can come in front of a federal court.

Yes it is, but show me the federal law or part of the Constitution NJ broke. I can easily see where Florida went wrong with completely ignoring 3 USC 5 which specifically states that they can not change the rules after the fact. But this only applies to the Presidential Election. Show me EXACTLY what federal code or part of the Constitution was violated in this ruling. I hope you find something, but 2 USC covering the election of Senators and Representatives is very short on requirements.

[IncPen]

The court said that the state Democratic Party must pay for the ballots to be reprinted. State election officials estimate it will cost about $800,000 to do that.

The price of a stolen election, writ small...

[nicepaco]

Did the court mention the law - just ONCE?
When will we learn? Laws are for suckers!

[Theodore R.]

This is a totally expected ruling. What else could the ruling have been with a Whitman-dominated court? See the RINOs are really of no help!

[goldstategop]

I keep thinking of George Orwell's Animal Farm. We might rephrase Orwell's famous aphorism to read, "Some Political Parties Are Created More Equal Than Others."

[ctdonath2]

Why appeal the decision?

Because the decision stated that the plain language of the law doesn't matter. The issue isn't about who wins the race, the issue is about whether election laws mean anything.

[Paleo Conservative]

Yes it is, but show me the federal law or part of the Constitution NJ broke.

I think the New Jersey law violates the seventeenth amendment. That amendment says that each state shall have two senators elected by the people of that state. I also allows for the governor to appoint a senator to fill a vacancy until an election can be held according to laws written by the state legislatures. Cancelling the election does not sound consistent with the seventeenth amendment. Also appointing a senator to serve two years when there is not a vacancy in the office would also be a violation.

Amendment XVII

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

[sayfer bullets]

"Why appeal the decision?"

Because the decision stated that the plain language of the law doesn't matter. The issue isn't about who wins the race, the issue is about whether election laws mean anything.

-----[ Exactly. If I may add... just as in Florida, what is at stake is a challenge by the judicial branch of the legislature's expressed powers. It may or may not be taken up by the USSC, but if not...the suggestion to make it a national campaign issue is a good one.]

[blondee123]

This just shows that there is no respect for laws, for the consitution, for anything anymore in this country. I don't care if it was republican or democrat, it shouldn't have been allowed!! Why the hell are we ordered, by law to wear seat belts, or to not smoke in certain places, well, to hell with the laws, lets just all be barbaric like our lawmakers, and change the laws to suit the situation!! This sickens me, what is happening in this country??????

[Common Tator]

This is an election to the US Senate not the state Senate. The requirements, method of election, and length of term of US Senators is specified in the United States Constitution

Bull SH*T. All the SCOTUS is going to do is extend the time limit for military ballots.

Lautenberg is on the ballot for the Democrats and Forrester for the Republicans. That is what is going to happen.

When a year from now Lautenberg comes down with old age, he will retire and the Torch will be apointed to take his place. Get used to it. That is going to happen.

The reason they are running the retired lautenberg is he was the only on who would agree to retire so they could appoint torch back to the office.

The torch would not step down unless they guaranteed he would be appointed to the office when Lautenberg retires the second time.

The fix is in.. The fix has always been in.

[Brimack34]

It seemed to me watching the hearing that the supreme court met with the dems ahead of time and already made their decision. This was fixed before they picked the replacement. Also some of the court gave the torch money.

[wilmington2]

Torch conceded ,so Forrester won, but because that is true the election contest must be run again until a Dem. wins.The courts excuse for ignoring the law's no subs. within 51 days of and election is that it as merely procedural and therefore to be ignored in favor of the no-law standard of "fairness", meaning in this case, "A Republican win is not fair"

[plymaniac]

I think it's hilarious that Drudge has absolutely refused to cover this story. Probably because the outcome is the absolute opposite of news.

[Always Right]

Cancelling the election does not sound consistent with the seventeenth amendment. Also appointing a senator to serve two years when there is not a vacancy in the office would also be a violation.

Considering the ruling yesterday just replaced a name on the ballot the ruling did neither of those. There will still be an election and there was no appointment that would extend the term beyond six years.