Torch, resignation and... THE LAW

NJ Statutes | CJ Barr

[copycat]

PEOPLE, THINK. LET'S DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A VACANCY IN THE SENATE AND A VACANCY ON THE BALLOT.

[rstevens]

Primaries are entirely different from General elections.They are mainly left up to the respective parties and candidates. General elections are mandated by the US constitution. And are therefore horses of a different color.

[rstevens]

I think so, meaning that he could still draw a pension from his service as a congressman, but not anything for his senatorial service.

[hispanarepublicana]

Heard on Fox the deadline for that kind of maneuver would have been Sept. 16th.

I wonder what it is that we unearthed about him, but then didn't let Toricelli know that we had the info on him until SEPT 17!!! LOL!

[hispanarepublicana]

I don't seem to have the attention span this evening to parse all of the legalese or think too hard about this, but I DO KNOW one thing:
The clip from Toricelli's press conference where he says (repeatedly) that he didn't want to be responsible for Dems losing the seat, should and likely will be played repeatedly in court--it proves that he's not quitting the race and filing with the SCOTUS because of a personal hardship (ill familymember, personal illness, hell--even and affair, etc.), but entirely for the purpose of affecting the outcome of the election.

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

Washington, D.C. - Senator Bill Frist, (R-TN), Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), made the following statement today following Senator Robert Torricelli's (D-NJ) announcement:

The law in New Jersey is very clear: an individual may not pull his or her name from the ballot less than 51 days from the election. The National Republican Senatorial Committee will participate in any challenge to the effort by the Democratic Party to replace Senator Robert Torricelli on the general election ballot. If there were to be exceptions to the law, it is highly unlikely that fear of losing an election would be one of them.

[Leto]

If it takes the courts more than 6 days to replace him on the ballot (ie overturn the existing law), it doesn't matter. Mc Greedy can't appoint a replacement.

I think the Torch was being pressured to resign his seat, but didn't choose to. Absent a lawless court the rats are sunk/

[goldstategop]

Assuming this gets tied up in the courts by the time the issue is settled, its too late to put a replacement candidate on the ballot. The Democrats can put in a write in candidate with name recognition, but I don't think any of the heavyweight "big names" that have been touted are going to rush to sign up with this last minute stunt and associate themselves with "The Torch's" sleaze. You'd need substantial money to run and plenty of airtime to run a good campaign and the election window's sorta tight. Let's face it, the Democrats should have nominated a replacement back when they held their primary and this mess is entirely of their own making. Its understandable they want a second bite at the apple, but it won't happen and the seat is as good as GOP all things being equal. And don't forget, Tommy Daschund was out there campaigning for Robert Torricelli before his lead blew like a popped balloon so the charge they were being set up by a GOP trick doesn't hold water, unless you believe that losing entitles you to a political affirmative action remedy.

[FlameThrower]

I posted that law in another thread. This thread deals with the possibility that the Dems would use a resignation from the Senate to get another candidate on the ballot.

[rstevens]

Not according to what I see posted. If he resigns after 30 days prior then his appointment can serve for the next two years

Unconstitutional. A senate is for a term of six years, then that seat MUST be elected by the people.

If the torch resigns now, or later within a thirty day window of the general election, then the appointment would only be until Jan 2003. Since they missed the 51 day window, they cannot replace Torch with another candidate like Bradley or Laughtenburg. I believe Torch's name will remain on the ballot, kind of like Carnahan's was during 2000 election. If Torch should pull out a victory, then the Gov will appoint the vacancy until next general election.

But you better believe, if the Torch should pull out a victory, he will claim the seat.

[rstevens]

You've got it!

[Young Werther]

So the Dems think that they have a right to WIN! I suppose that they would agree that a home team that is behind 1-0 in the bottom of the ninth should be allowed a rule change. Unlimited at bats/outs until they win!

Yep. Chutspah!

[ChadGore]

With the world watching, with Osama-loving-sycophants, Arafat apologists, and Abu Nidalets looking on, you would think the democrats would want to demonstrate to the world that democracy can work. That politicians in this country are willing to face the ballot box, that democracy can and should be demonstrated to work, that liberty and respect for the peoples will is not only paramount, but saught out by proud representatives who value the mandate given to them by the people instead of their own blind ambitions.

The dems reflexivly ask themselves "what would willie do?" and put on parade for the world a croked, already-been-bribed thug for the world to scandalize over while the Osama-loving-sycophants delusionaly pontificate that "democracy is dead", that "liberty is an illusion".

My utter distaine for their raw lust for power grew in 2000 with al gores delusion of grandure, was fanned by Janet Renos parade of chads this year and is sealed by toricellis utter lack of respect for liberty, democracy and a country OF, BY and FOR the people.

[fhayek]

It seems to me, that after the September 16th deadline, Torricelli's name cannot be removed, and someone else's name cannot be supplemented (a la Mel Carnahan). A stand-in democrat candidate will have to win with write-in votes. Of course a large number of dims will pull the Torricelli lever, split the ticket, and Forrester will cruise in.

[IVote2]

"The Democrats can put in a write in candidate with name recognition, but I don't think any of the heavyweight "big names" that have been touted are going to rush to sign up with this last minute stunt and associate themselves with "The Torch's" sleaze."

You make an excellent point. My husband and I were just discussing this. Why would an up and coming Representative like Bob Menendez with a good chance at a leadership role want to inject himself into this mess? I believe I have his name right. I can't see Bradley or Lautenberg signing on either. I don't know the other names mentioned as possiblities.

I must say I thought I had seen the worst sleeze possible with our last occupant in the White House, but I was wrong. The contempt liberals have for their own voters is just mind-boggling.

Still, this is New Jersey...

[copycat]

I posted that law in another thread. This thread deals with the possibility that the Dems would use a resignation from the Senate to get another candidate on the ballot.

My bad.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

THERE IS WAY TOO MUCH NONSENSE GOIN ON!

This discussion about special elections, cancelling elections, etc. are ridiculous. NJ cannot cancel its election for the Senate seat whose term expires in January of '03. The governor cannot appoint a new senator to fill the remaining term and delay the election. That term ends in January. Finally, Torch has NOT resigned his seat. He is not running for reelection! He is in the same position as Phil Gram. Bothe terms end in January. If Cornyn pulled out of the race at this point, Kirk would win Phil's seat unopposed.

The only way the Dems could retain this seat would be that they were able to put another candidate in for the Torch. It does not appear that they can.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

If Torch's name remains on the ballot and he won, he would serve a full six year term.

[mrsmith]

According to the NJ law cited the Governor would appoint someone to fill the vacancy until the next general election as provided by law- two years later. That winner would serve the 4-year reminder of the term.

There is no 17th amendment problem, as it is being done as provided by the state legislature.

Though it seems a fundamental Constitutional right-to-vote consideration should prevent this barbarity, I don't see how!

[07055]

The Democrats can put in a write in candidate with name recognition,

Funny you mention this. I came across this issue today. There has been only one US Senator elected by a write in campaign---Strom Thurmond in 1952.

I have no idea how it came to be that Strom needed to be a write in candidate.