[willgetsome]

Plan A and Plan B:

Plan A: try to switch the names on the ballot

Plan B: If Plan A fails in the courts, then: 1) resign from the Senate, 2) Gov. appoints an "annoited" Dem to the seat, 3) election postponed, 4) special election 1 year later.

Any way you look at it, the fix is in and most NJ voters think it's okay. In fact, the mantra quoted by the papers will be:

"I think its great that I now have a real candidate that I can cast a vote for. The right of the voter to have a good candidate to vote for is more important than some arbitrary deadline in the state law."

BTW, I've already seen such talk in NJ websites! LOL

[mwl1]

Governor has no authority under the Constitution of the United States to extend any senate term. Period.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

The question should be, why does the vote have to rescheduled when it's already scheduled?
The law doesn't exist for Torricelli, does it?

[writmeister]

Plan B: If Plan A fails in the courts, then: 1) resign from the Senate, 2) Gov. appoints an "annoited" Dem to the seat, 3) election postponed, 4) special election 1 year later.

Mcgreedy cannot postpone general election. Matter of federal law which trumps any contrary state law. (Foster v. Love decision of US Supreme Court).

[justshutupandtakeit]

NJ cannot postpone a federal election. That is a false reading of NJ law.

[gridlock]

Plan A and Plan B:

Plan A: try to switch the names on the ballot

Plan B: If Plan A fails in the courts, then: 1) resign from the Senate, 2) Gov. appoints an "annoited" Dem to the seat, 3) election postponed, 4) special election 1 year later.

I don't think it would work out that way. If the Torch resigns the Senate within 30 days, that does not effect his standing on the ballot. If Plan A has already failed, the voters still have a choice between Torricelli and Forrester in November. There is no requirement that at least one candidate be a member of the Senate.

There is no harm done to the placeholder because he does not have the opportunity to campaign for a year. He is, after all, a placeholder. He has no standing in the issue of whether or not the November election can proceed.

Now if you really want to get twisted, imagine that the Torch quits next week, is replaced by a 'Rat loyalist, and the November election goes off as scheduled. Would the 'Rat majority in the Senate dare to refuse to seat Forrester citing some BS reading of the NJ law? Could the 'Rat's possibly have that little respect for the rule of law? Have they no shame?

^{(Answers: Of course they would, Of course can, Of course they don't )}