[michaelt]

I may have missed your post on this, but I think you're missing the fact that just because someone gets appointed to fill out the seat doesn't give that person the right to automatically get put on the ballot.

If Torch resigns, and McGreevey appoints Lautenberg, fine, he can serve out the rest of the term. And he can be a write in candidate. But he missed his chance to have his name on the ballot, per whatever NJ election laws cover doing that.

Dave Kopel's article on National Review Online seems pretty clear to me on this. Where is the catch, other than a blatant endrun by the NJSC?

Now, if Torricelli were alive but incapacitated, say in Patsy Mink's situation, I'm not sure what would be the lawful decision. That would mean some interpretation of the law, I think.

But we're not there.....yet.

[Torie]

I have posted it before, but here is my brief as a Dem. If Torch resigns by next Monday, there must be a special election to coincide with the general election for his replacement to serve the balance of his term until next January. Lautenberg will be on the ballot for that of course. Thus there will be two elections at once. One for the balance of the term, and one for the next term. Since all the ballots will have to be reprinted anyway, and since Lautenberg's name will appear in one election, is this not a special circumstance dictating that his name be on the ballot in the other?

You are on the NJSC, and are fair minded. How do you rule?

By the way, if you think the Dems haven't thought about this line of argument, then you must think they are as stupid as plywood. They don't get their advice from brain dead talking heads on the tube. They get their advice from lawyers from Harvard law school that charge $400 an hour in D.C. And I am just a beat up old provincial lawyer in the boonies and I thought of it rather quickly.