Forrester Opposed "51 Day Deadline" in GOP Primary Legal Fight

New York Times | 10/05/02 | NYT

[lugsoul]

Mr. Genova also uncovered a legal memorandum from Mr. Forrester's lawyer written in April, when State Senator Diane Allen, one of Mr. Forrester's opponents in the Republican primary, was trying to block him from taking the ballot position of James W. Treffinger. Mr. Treffinger, the Essex County executive, had resigned from the race because of scandal three days earlier, or 40 days before the primary.

Senator Allen maintained that moving Mr. Forrester's name to Mr. Treffinger's place on the ballot would come too late under Title 19 of the state election law, which sets a deadline of 51 days before an election for ballot substitutions. It is the same argument that Mr. Forrester's lawyer, Peter G. Sheridan, made before the State Supreme Court on Wednesday, opposing Mr. Lautenberg's placement on the ballot. The Democrats said that the deadline was merely a guideline.

In April, Mr. Sheridan read the law the way the Democrats do today.

"Strict compliance to statutory requirements and deadlines within Title 19," Mr. Sheridan wrote, "are set aside where such rights may be accommodated without significantly impinging upon the election process."

Mr. Genova said the Forrester campaign was trying to have it both ways. But Mr. Sheridan said today that the two situations were not analogous because "no primary ballots had been issued" in April.

In the current case, some 1,600 absentee ballots with Senator Torricelli's name have been sent out.

[lugsoul]

Goose? Gander?

Enough already. Let the voters choose.

[OldFriend]

There is a big difference in moving a place on the ballot to changing the candidate.....wouldn't you agree. However, it's time to focus on the old guy and sending him back into the nursing home from whence he came.

[William McKinley]

Your Donation Helps Counter These Guys
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[TonyInOhio]

Enough already. Let the voters choose

I'd revise that a bit:

Enough already. Let the voters Democratic Party hacks choose.

Tony

[lugsoul]

Of course I agree. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether the deadline is an absolute, or not. And Forrester argued in court that it was not, then. He is not well-situated to argue now that the NJSCT's action in not holding the Dems to an absolute deadline is unconstitutional.

[The_Victor]

Was the ballot move allowed or not?

[VRWCmember]

Another BIG DIFFERENCE:
In the primary election, there had not been a prior (Pre-primary if you will) election to decide what names would be on the ballot. In other words, the candidate chosen by the party's voters was not being replaced in midstream after the party decided it looked like the chosen candidate would probably lose.

[wildandcrazyrussian]

You are confusing two absolutely diffrent things. Forester was ALREADY ON the primary ballot, and the question was "whose name of the already-know list of candidates gets to be printed at the top?" There was no question of any substitution of anything, therefore no conflict as you supposedly see it.

[FR_addict]

Thanks for explaining it in plain English. As you say, these are two completely different issues. Talk about twisting things to fit their agenda.

[steveegg]

Running through the Jersey statutes, I can't find where it speaks to primary ballot placement (as opposed to primary ballot access). Without knowing the specifics of the case, my best guess was that Forrester was seeking a flip-flop with a guy who left the race late.

[lugsoul]

Well, if you are correct, apparently Forrester also confused the deadline, because he was trying to argue around it in court. Show me where the law says it doesn't also apply to the primary ballot position situation - Forrester apparently thought it did, and argued that it was flexible.

[lugsoul]

See #11

[section9]

Hey, not to beat a dead horse, but you're beating a dead horse.

The SCOTUS decided not to take the case. Lautenberg is now the Democratic candidate. We're Republicans and we'll play by the rules.

And I suspect that we will actually win this race.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[steveegg]

My guess is that it (I would like to see the briefs involved) was an ill-formed response to Ms. Allen's allegations that the 51-day deadline, which EXPLICITLY applies to general elections, also applied to primaries ("In the event of a vacancy, howsoever caused, among candidates nominated at primaries, which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election, or in the event of inability to select a candidate because of a tie vote at such primary...." (emphasis added)). The closest I've found to a statute regarding the primary ballot is 19:23-12, which speaks about filling a vacancy, presumably as part of a primary, because it references petitions. There, the law had been changed so that the deadline for the committee named on the petition that would fill such vacancy would have 48 days instead of 34 (I think it was about 1985; tracking the changes through NJ's online database of statutes is not easy).

I'm not entirely familiar with the April case (it appears that you are not either), so at this point all either of us have to go on is conjecture.

[steveegg]

Was the ballot move allowed or not?

That there is one of the keys. The other is whether the judiciary had authority to do so in a Senate race, either explicitly or through review of discretion on the part of another official (something else that I have not been able to dig out any information on).

[The_Victor]

I agree.

I can cope with the SCONJ's decision if they are at least consistent. If the 51 days is not an absolute in their reading of the law (I don't see how anyone could arrive at that conclusion, but I'm an engineer, not a lawyer), then it should be applied universally. Otherwise this is just a democRAT hack job on the law, perpetrated by partisan judges in dire need of impeachment.