The dems of course sued and the NJ Supreme Court ruled that the law wasn't important, what mattered was that the people of NJ have a proper democrat that was able to win be on the ballot. I Anot even reqlly exaggerating. They said an unelectable democrat being the only choice (because republicans don't count, I guess) was undemocrating and unfair so they said they law should just be ignored, put Frank Lautenberg on. Lautenberg as a former Senator but had dementia so he had not run again some years back. They kept it quiet so the public didnt know really but those clowns on the court that said it was neccessary for an electable democrat to be on the ballot surely knew he was a vegetable, but also that he'd win and that's all that mattered.
So 20 years ago the NJ Supreme court said that no matter what the law says, you cannot keep a bad candidate on a ballot and prevent him from being replaced because it's too important that the voters have a real choice. And now another state's Supreme Court says that if democrats say you did something bad, then you MUST be kicked off because it's more important that democrats get their way than voters get a choice.
I'm sensing a trend in the way lawfare works, it seem to favor one side pretty heavily.
All true