BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 10:37 PM

Hey, folks, like lets get real here. So what if either party wants to play by WWO rules of tag teams or Roller Derby. Heck, when the smoke clears, the Repubocrats win and the working class looses.

As fir me, I hope the Repubs win it all because they are the meaner of the two, the less sympathetic of the two and the most to get a world war started of the two... and the sooner the Dems can get themselves unhitched from the whipping post the sooner that the Repubs will be seen as the mean-spirited rednecks that they are. Not that the Dems are too much better, mind you...

Still voting Green, but not liking the redneck Repubs too much these days...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: raredance
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 09:46 PM

The incumbent in Montana is the Democrat, so that doesn't affect the ballance of power in the Senate. So far the Republican who "suspended" campaigning will still have his name on the ballot. If the Republicans find a body and try to get the new person's name substituted on the ballot, they will of course be contradicting the position that they recently argued in NJ and tried to take to the Supreme Court. According to the Billings newspaper recent polls had the incumbent with about a 20 point lead. The Green candidate had 1% and the Libertarian candidate had 0%

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: DougR
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 07:00 PM

I heard a report on NPR this morning that it is too late to place a Republican on the ballot in Montana so the only possibility for a Republican there is via write-in. Not a likely way for any candidate to win. Looks like the seat will go to a Democrat who will have no opponent unless the Green Party Independents or Libertarian's have candidates.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 04:23 PM

Thany you, guest. Another reason why there are no floodgates!

As I've said (but in different ways), the "floodgates are open" position requires that we believe some combination of the following propositions:

1) the most likely candidate to win will NOT be the one nominated in the first place (otherwise, why would a change be necessary?)


2) it's better for the candidate who ultimately ends up on the ballot to have a short campaign than a long one (otherwise, why not seek the nomination in the first place?)

and/or

3) if you are behind in the polls with only three weeks to the election, a different candidate who so far has not campaigned at all has a better chance of winning than you do (otherwise, why not stick with it and try to raise your own standing rather than giving up?)

These situations almost never happen. When they have happened before, the courts generally have allowed the substitutions. And anyway, no precedent has been set outside NJ? So what is different after Torch? I just don't get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 03:33 PM

Just heard on the news that the Republican candidate for Senate in Montana is pulling out of the race because it wasn't going well, but he may have been caught in some monetary shennanigans like Toricelli. I don't know if there is a proposed replacement. Now this might be taken as indication that the flood gates are open. I tend to disagree with that position because I really think that the vast majority of politicians have too great an ego to even admit they are behind much less throw in the towel. They all envision capturing 99% of the undecided voters. The Goldwater and Dukakis campaigns all stressed how large the crowds were at their speeches in the dying days and what great enthusiasm they had to get out the vote and win.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: beadie
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 11:18 AM

With all the obvious electile dysfunction, the New Jersey folks really need Bob Dole rather than Mickey.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 08:39 PM

Now let me get this straight. Mickey Mouse is running for election in New Jersey. For him to qualify as a candidate doesn't he have to be a New Jersey resident? Yes!!! Then that means the little squeaky-voiced, big-eared, tuxedo wearin' fucker has to move up there!!! He's gotta leave Florida!!! Oh, frabjous day!!! Hip, hip, hooray!!! Send the Rat to Joisey and give us back the Oklawaha River the way it used to be!!!

What? Oh..... You mean it's only a figure of speech? The little sumbitch is stayin' here? Well....Shit!!!

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: wilco
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 07:36 PM

Mickey Mouse is not, I repeat "IS NOT," involved with erections or jersey selection. he wears the same dull red shirt all of the time,

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: wilco
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 02:52 PM

This isn't about Mickey's jerseys and clothing lines, and it isn't about his erections?

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 02:33 PM

Yes, Claymore, Doug and I are beatin' an old dead horse! But here's some info on primaries, just FYI. As you can see, they are not legally binding on parties in any sense. The Party's whole responsibility is to field candidates that can win the election, and if they feel primary results are somehow skewed they will happily nominate someone who didn't win the primary. Candidates can win the primaries and not be nominated, and they can lose, or refuse to enter, the primaries, and still be nominated, which Humphrey did among others.

from Encyclopedia Americana re primaries.

Presidential primaries are not always the only road to the WHITE HOUSE, however. Kefauver won most of them in 1952, but was not nominated. Vice President Hubert H. HUMPHREY steered clear of the primaries in 1968, but won his party's presidential nomination nevertheless. Thus a candidate highly acceptable to the regular organization leaders of his party may win without the primaries. But a candidate who lacks organizational support has no other alternative than to enter the primaries, and do well in them, if he hopes to be nominated. Even then, he may be thwarted if the leaders of the party are opposed to him--the fate that awaited Kefauver.

Once again, there's nothing illegal in the party choosing a candidate in any way it decides, solely in order to win the election. That's pretty much what parties exist to accomplish. (If you want to ban parties from our elections, and instead vote for individuals based on issues, I might back you up on that, BTW). The restraints put upon this in New Jersey in terms of dates and deadlines are traditionally seen by the courts as flexible, and this case was no different. It's only being treated differently because Forrester is a hypocritical crybaby and because the stakes are elevated due to the Senate's even split.

The decision of the party to put a candidate on the ballot after a deadline is the kind of decision that occurs somewhere in America every year without anybody appealing to the courts. When it does go to court, different states act differently. But New Jersey almost always acts the way it acted this time: let the person on the ballot. This was a routine decision by New Jersey's court, it was a unanimous decision, it sets no citable precedent outside New Jersey, and I just can't see why you think it portends such doom for our electoral system.

The real problem for our system, BTW, is the lack of campaign spending caps, which politicians from both parties cravenly refuse to discuss on the grounds that it violates their free speech rights! Well, for something free it costs a bloody bit, doesn't it? If you were only allowed to spend a small amount on a campaign we'd have politicians no longer bought by big corporations. Whether a party can nominate its candidate five, ten, fifty or a hundred days out is a minuscule triviality by comparison!

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 09:11 AM

Well as I wrote before, I think both court decisions were bad, but as I also wrote, "it's the Law and not the individual" that counts. As I read it, the USSC gave no reason for refusing to review the case, thus it could have been any combination of issues that resulted in the no writ. It may be, that in the future, we see this issue again, wearing different clothes, but for now, on to the elections. For, as I have also written before, "Dogs bark, but the Caravan moves on...

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 01:22 AM

DougR,

there's nothing in the constitution about parties or primaries. Primaries are a relatively recent invention of our two-party system, a means by which parties elect candidates. They are not part of the structure of our democracy. So the fact that someone wins a primary is meaningless; primaries have no official constitutional standing.

Our democracy intends that anyone who wants to, from whatever party or no party, can run for office. The laws governing elections are theoretically set down to make that possible. Those same laws were then applied to the primaries when those were invented, hence the same 51 day deadline. But you're confusing winning a primary, which is internal to a party, and winning an election, which puts someone in office. The parties could give up primaries if they wanted to, or ignore their results. Thus, I still don't think there is any "floodgate" to open, because this has all been legal all along.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: DougR
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 12:52 AM

Well, toad, unless I am mistaken, and admittedly, I could be, Mr. Simon was cleared of those charges. Isn't that correct?

It's bad because it makes elections meaningless. A primary is held and all parties offer candidates for election. Someone wins the primary, and we have a race between the winners. Polls are taken near the election an one candidate that HAS WON the primary is clearly going to lose.

So you think that is grounds for entering a candidate that didn't run in the primary? If so, I assume you favor changing the election process. Otherwise, why have elections at all. Perhaps candidates should just "buy" the seat. Obviously, were that the case, we would only have Republican politicians, right. Everyone knows that Republicans are the only rich politicians, right? So we could rule the world! Horse pucky. It was a bad decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court, and gives fuel to the fire that all politicians are crooked.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 12:52 AM

DougR,

There's no floodgate. One of my points through this has been this: the Forrester people are trying to make it sound like this is an unusual situation but it isn't. Lots of people withdraw and are replaced in US elections for reasons other than illness, including Treffinger, who yielded his ballott spot to Forrester in the primary just because the scandal was scuttling his chances, and Torch, who yielded his spot in the senate election to Lautenberg for the same reason. It's just part of the business. The only reason there are deadlines at all is so ballotts can be physically printed, not for campaigning purposes or for parties to commit irreparably to candidates. As it is, some states already have deadlines of as little as seven days before the election! Why is NJ setting a horrible precedent for allowing what's already legal in other states?

I think you're wrong to say Toricelli left just because he was going to be beaten. The scandal was a real factor. What does he care if he loses or resigns in disgrace? In either case he screws his followers and his party and ruins his career. He withdrew because there's even more corruption that still under wraps and he needs to get out of the public eye.

It's all much ado about nothing, as it turns out. The NJ courts, as I said, did what every expert on this situation said they would do, what they always do when this relatively common problem arises. Then the US Supreme Court, quite properly (but surprisingly to me), recognized that they had no jurisdiction over the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: toadfrog
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 11:12 PM

Why is that terrible, Doug? Where is the harm if bad candidates get out of the way and let good ones run? And why "floodgates"? I doubt the idea of withdrawing will appeal to many politicians.

If it is really such a promising tactic, point it out to Mr. Simon, the candidate your party is running for Governor in California. He had his scandal, why doesn't he get out of the race? I, for one, would just as soon have that crackpot off the ballot. The Republicans sure as hell have better people than that. Notwithstanding the fact I am a Democrat.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: DougR
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 05:52 PM

So you think this time, the Supreme Court did good, huh, Nerd? I think what they did is open the floodgates. Now any candidate that sees the writing on the wall thirty days before an election can simply resign and the party will put up somebody they think will run a better race. I think it sets a terrible precident. Having said that, I am glad the Supreme Court didn't take this one on. It would have give the liberals so much more to bitch about.

Keep in mind, my friends, Torricelli did not pull out of the race because of scandal, or illness, or death, or sexual misconduct. He pulled out because the polls showed he was going to get beat badly.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Blues=Life
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 09:49 AM

Rich R, you wrote:
"My understanding of the NJ issue is the the Torch could resign his office (not just his candidacy) and the Democratic governor could fill the vacancy. That would effectively mean a special election would be called at a later date."

From what I've heard, this would not happen. The term of office is set by the constitution. If a new senator was appointed, they would serve until the next general election. IMMEDIATELY following it, the new senator would take office. That would mean, if the repubs won, a new senator would take office the day after the election, not next January. (This would immediatly change the balance in the Senate, something the Dems do not want to even consider.) Plus, the "candidate" is different than the "incumbent", so there is no automatic substitution of a replacement senator on the ballot. The legally chosen candidate is the PERSON who won the primary, not a generic "Incumbent". This is probably why the Torch didn't resign. That and the fact that now he can withdraw "for the good of the party", whereas resignation might mean he would have to take responsibility for his illegal actions. The Torch is proof, once more, that Will Rogers was right.. We have the best Congress money can buy! LOL

Blues

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: kendall
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 08:50 AM

Isn't it interesting that the republicans happily accept the US Supreme court appointing a president, then tey raise hell over a senator also working the system?
Doug, thanks for this thread. Ya done good!

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: The Pooka
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 01:18 AM

Yes, sadly, as usual. Thanks for info about the inconsistent Republican. Not surprising, but still ridiculous. As Atty. Zurofsky (I think it was) said earlier here, it all depends on whose Ox is Gored.

I didn't & still don't like the NJ court decision. But I think the Supremes did the right (not to mention smart) thing to dismiss the appeal. Not a substantial Federal issue. State question.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Nerd
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 11:04 PM

Well, looks like the US Supreme Court did the right thing after all.

Richr, thanks for the Minnesota story. Another great precedent for violating the 51 day rule based merely on a candidate's superior electability is, believe it or not, Forrester himself. When Forrester was vying for a spot in the primaries, precisely the same thing happened: a scandal caused a candidate to pull out. Forrester was added to the ballot after the 51 day deadline (which also applies to primaries), and another Republican candidate complained. At that time, Forrester's lawyer, Peter Sheridan, argued that enforcing this law was unnecessary. Now he is making the opposite argument. Here's the NY Times account; Anglo Genova is the Democrats' lawyer in this case:

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."

Well, Doug Forrester's looking shadier and shadier. I wouldn't be surprised if his own problems with Diane Allen gave him the idea to try toblock Lautenberg. Now that that didn't work he's trying to block campaign funds from being transferred from Torch's campaign to Lautenberg's. Politics as usual...

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: The Pooka
Date: 05 Oct 02 - 11:40 AM

PS but surely Katie Harris didn't, nor would Honest Bob Torricelli ever, backdate a legal document. That's against the law. HAHAHAHAHA

rich r, I think you're essentially correct about NJ law re resignation of Senator (as distinct, which it is or SHOULD be, from withdrawal of candidate), although I've been told of a very weird provision in there supposedly connecting the two (resignation from current term & postponement of regular election for new term). Anyway, I *gather* (?) the upshot of a Torricelli resignation from existing term (expiring January 2003) would have been appointment of a successor by Gov. McGreavy to serve until regular NJ election in November 2003---NJ is one of 4 states having having *state* elections in odd-numbered years. / But they elected McGreavey Governor in Nov. 2001, presumably for 4 years; so I dunno. Is the legislature, or part of it, up every 2 years, ergo 2003?

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: The Pooka
Date: 05 Oct 02 - 11:27 AM

Rich r, thanks for that remarkable Minnesota story. / In CT we have a late 10-and-7 deadline (withdraw up to 10 days, be replaced up to 7); but we've not, in recent history anyway, had to implement it so late in the game for a STATEWIDE candidacy. (Maybe Congress once, I think. State legislature occasionally.)But quite a few small-district nominees do always drop out, every damn time, & get replaced in August through *mid*-October. Had one yesterday, in fact. Grandly wrote "I will not be a candidate in 2002." Leaving door open for next time y'see. (In a hopeless-for-his-party district, har har) / Why the Hell don't they think it through before *taking* the nomination? / If -- no, I suppose *when* -- it happens late & *statewide* some day, I Am Dubious/Yellow about our actual ability to re-dress the machines (that's what our machine techs really call it: "dressing" them) that fast. Small state; but some 3,000 good' old mechanical lever machines. Absentee ballots already out, fuggedabout it.

"...local election officials muttered about staying up to count paper ballots." O so it's *Muttered*, did they? Ours will not merely MUTTER, lemme tellya! HARHARHAR You think Paddy the Pollworker went out on Shtrike in Florida? HA! Give my beloved Constitution State an all-paper-ballot election, you WILL see Yankee Doodle go to Town...heeheehee...nonono, kidding; we'd manage. Sleepless in South Windsor, Exhausted in Essex, Grumpy in Greenwich (so wot else is new?:), but we'd do it. (Can't ya see Joe Lieberman holding ballots up to the light? Oy, another one for Buchanan, the schmuck...)

Oh well. I become eligible (theoretically) to retire from the Elections Biz in February. Screw 'em. (Dedicated public servant:)

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: raredance
Date: 05 Oct 02 - 10:45 AM

The NJ situation recalls what happened a number of years ago across the river in Minnesota.

In the 1990 Minnesota governor's race, Republican nominee Jon Grunseth dropped out only eight days before the election. The conservative "family values",Grunseth's downfall were allegations of personal misconduct: adultery, drinking and nude swimming with female friends of his teenage daughter. One girl testified that Grunseth had pulled her top down. And there were photos of him cavorting with the teens whikle they still had their suits on. In late October as more witnesses started to talk about his behavior, the Republican Party demanded that Grunseth withdraw. When he finally did, they chose primary runner-up Arne Carlson as the new Republican candidate for governor. Then the Democratic secretary of state swiftly certified Carlson as the Republican candidate for governor; ordered paper ballots printed up because it was too late to change the voting machines; threw Grunseth's Lt. governor running mate off the ballot and substituted Carlson's; and did all this without a peep of complaint from the state's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. The Republicans were not even asked to pay the additional costs for all this even though local election officials muttered about staying up to count paper ballots.

The Democratic incumbent, Rudy Perpich, often referred to as "Governor Goofy" would probably have beaten the very conservative Grunseth, certainly after all the revelations.   On the other hand Perpich trailed Carlson by 10 points in every poll. Carlson had tried to make the point in the primaries that he was more electable than Grunseth, but primaries are dominated by the party faithful (Democratic or Republican) and are typically more extreme than the population as a whole (That's what got Barry Goldwater and George McGovern nominated). The Minnesota Deomocrats didn't whine or try to stop the switch, even though it ended up costing them the governorship.

The only legal challenge to this came from Grunseth's Lt. Governor running mate who didn't want to get removed from the ballot.   The Minnesota Supreme Court quickly voided her lawsuit. As for disenfranchisement of absentee voters, the absentee ballots had been printed and mailed long before Carlson substituted for Grunseth. Voters who had already mailed their ballots had to go to their polling places before the absentee ballots were counted and get a new one; otherwise, they could return their unmailed ballots to their local county auditor and get the revised version. No doubt many of them failed to do so, but that didn't faze the Republicans as it appears to in NJ. Nor did the Democrats raise it as a legal issue even though they may have had the most to lose because Perpich was more popular than Grunseth but less popular thyan Carlson. Minnesota's election law was sufficiently vague to permit a challenge by the Democrats to keep Grunseth on the ballot. only eight days before the election. The Democrats could surely have gone to Federal Court with the same aguments about disenfranchisement of absentee voters as the NJ Republicans are now doing, but they didn't. They opted to let a competitive election take place and Carlson won.

My understanding of the NJ issue is the the Torch could resign his office (not just his candidacy) and the Democratic governor could fill the vacancy. That would effectively mean a special election would be called at a later date.

If Torricelli had been thinking, he could have backdated his resignation to the 51 day deadline. What's the precendent for that? Exactly the same one that allowed Katherine Harris to backdate her resignation as Florida's secretary of state two months ago.


rich r

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: toadfrog
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 11:20 PM

Nicole C: I think you will find that Senators are no longer appointed by legislatures. If they were, this controversy would not have arisen. I believe it was the 17th amendment that changed that, in or about the time of Woodrow Wilson, but buffs may want to correct me on that. We usually call them United States Senators. Whether the Supreme Court could intervene is a point for constitutional scholars. But I think it is a matter that the Court would be very much inclined to shy away from, unless the circumstances were a lot more extreme than these. The text of the Gore v. Bush decision indicates how reluctant the Court has always been to set precedents in matters like this. The consequences are just too unforeseeable.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: The Pooka
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 09:31 PM

Awww right, NicoleC! "There ARE no federal elections, except the one the Electoral College holds among itself." Right arm! Except that y'know, the 538 Presidential Electors are elected State officials, too (albeit their "term of office" is rather brief!); and *they never meet together*. The Electoral College has no Campus! On the specified day in December they meet separately in -- guess where? --- their 50 respective *state capitals*! (plus Warshington---City Hall I guess?-- for the Dee Cee Three). // Federal Elections are altogether a Myth. (Yeah but try tellin' it to the Federal Elections Commission, with their massive tomes of U.S. House, Senate, and "Presidential" (what's that?) campaign-finance regulations.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Nerd
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 08:48 PM

NicoleC

all that you say is true. However, as I pointed out before, the structure of our government takes for granted that the interpretation of the Constitution and all other laws is up to...The Supreme Court! So, even though you and I would argue that the only ting that can override the state election is the congress itself, the Supreme Court can decide that the clauses you just cited actually mean something different from what we think they mean in this case. In particular, they can decide that the NJ legislature's intent was to absolutely prohibit new candidates like Lautenberg being put on the ballot, and hence prohibit him from running. This would be a more or less absurd interpretation that went against all precedent, but what the hey? They've done it before!

The result would be that, legally, the NJ legislature will have decided that Lautenberg cannot run, because the US Supreme court will decide that that is what the legislature's law means to this case.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not arguing it would be right. Just that they DO have the power, as the Florida recount decision proved two years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: NicoleC
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 07:47 PM

Claymore,

A Senator is NOT a federal office, it's a state one.

(Section 3) "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote. "

(section 4) "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

In other words, the ONLY thing that can override the state election of the state's choosen officers for the Senate is the Senate itself.

And the issue before the court was NOT a *Senator* anyway, it's an *election* -- a state election, as Section 4 of the Constitution clearly states. There ARE no federal elections, except the one the Electoral College holds among itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Nerd
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 06:08 PM

DougR, I'll tell you what I would think. I would think, if they had ruled against the Democrats, that they had made the wrong decision. I'm not sure what I'd write on the thread, but it would surely reflect that feeling!

On the other hand, I would still oppose this going to the US Supreme Court because I think the NJ court should determine how NJ elections are run, and except in the case of blatant corruption, which this is surely not, the USSC would be be intruding on the state's sovereignty. Funny, it's usually Republicans who oppose that sort of Federal meddling (and I'm glad to see that you do, DougR). It seems to me that a lot of the Republicans who want the USSC to rule on this are being hypocritical.

BTW, the likelihood that Forrester could beat Lautenberg on merit is low. Even many NJ republicans think he's not so great a candidate. But he could beat him on issues (if more people agree with him than Lautenberg), or by negative campaigning, and so far seems to be choosing the latter course. He has, however, offered to debate Lautenberg weekly, an offer that must be taken with a small grain of salt considering that he's still pushing to have Lautenberg removed from the ballot. But if both candidates remain, and they agree to hold weekly debates, that would be a fine fair outcome for all of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Bennet Zurofsky
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 05:45 PM

I went to law school with the Hon. Jaynee LaVecchia, the NJ Supreme Court's "Independent." She always struck me as a Republican despite her formal Independent status. Accordingly, the Albin appointment was nothing extraordinary, or party-balance tipping. A new Governor always appoints a fellow party member for his first appointment to the Court, and as a practical matter, the balance seems to me to be 4-3 rather than 4-2-1. Nerd is 100% correct, however, in pointing out my error. I had forgotten this most recent change in the make-up of the Court. I stand corrected.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: DougR
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 05:34 PM

I can't help but wonder what the attitude of those who believe the NJSC made the right decision would be writing on this thread, had they ruled against the Democrats. Something we will never know, of course.

I disagree with Claymore, who I often agree with, on this issue. I still believe it would be wrong for the USSC to take this case. Let the Republican beat Lautenburg, on merit. Not because a court made it easy for him.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Nerd
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 05:28 PM

Bennett Z is entirely right except for one detail. Although the NJ Supreme Court is traditionally politically neutral (3 dems, 3 reps, 1 ind), Current Governor McGreevey changed that when he appointed a Democrat (Albin) to replace a Republican (Stein) when Stein retired in September. This was not a big controversy in NJ, precisely because as Bennett points out, the NJ Supreme court is not highly politicized. In any case, all the other justices I believe are Whitman appointees because if I'm not mistaken Stein was the last of Keane's to remain.

You can look up the justices on

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/

except they haven't updated the website to include Albin yet! But the decision itself, which is also online at the site, is signed by all the justices including Albin.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: toadfrog
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 05:15 PM

Well Doug, the statute appears to say a candidate may be replaced "up to 51 days" before the election. To the extent it prohibits replacement of candidates fewer than 51 days before, it would appear to have been enacted to save the State the cost and bother of printing additional ballots. It would be astonishing if the statute was intended to change the outcome of elections, or to punish parties for the withdrawal of a candidate. The NJ Court ordered the Democratic party to pay the substantial cost of reprinting and distributing ballots. That would appear to satisfy legislative intent.

Statutes are construed in light of legislative intent. The first but not the only, rule of construction is to follow the plain language of the statute. But as an extremely conservative judge has stated, courts depart from "plain language" to avoid absurdity. Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co. 109 S.Ct. 1981, 1994 (Scalia, J., concurring). The problem with your construction of the statute is that it is absurd. Moreover, the language of this particular statute is not all that plain.

And the "legal realist" school referenced by Attorney Zurofsky includes just about everyone who practices law today, liberal, conservative, and otherwise. Make sense?

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: The Pooka
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 04:56 PM

Thanks again, Bennet. Brilliantly argued. (And nicely punned at the end:) This praise is from a non-lawyer; but---full disclosure here---one who does work closely with your professional brethren, and in the elections-administration field to boot. (And seems we ARE always getting the Boot these days; but never mind my whining...)

It was I who had asked you about the Constitutional grounds for appeal. If they are indeed "trivial", which I had suspected but am glad to have expertly confirmed, then that is reason enough for the Supremes to give this case the Boot.

I still don't care for the Jersey Court's decision (of course my own election-bureaucrat's experience & perspective influences *me*); but I am impressed with the unanimity, and I don't (*can't* rationally, as you proved) presumptively ascribe it to partisan political motives. We do too much of that these day: always assuming the worst.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Bennet Zurofsky
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 04:24 PM

It is true that three of the seven Justices on the New Jersey Supreme are Democrats. Another three are Republican, and the last one is an Independent. Six of the Justices, including the Independent, were appointed by our former Republican Governor and the present Bush EPA Adminustrator, Christine Todd Whitman. Contrary to many assertions in this space, the New Jersey Supreme Court is not a highly politicized court, and is almost never criticized on those grounds. (Judicial activism being an entirely separate issue.) Our Justices are not elected, and it is a long-standing tradition (perhaps even a requirement of our 1948 Constitution) that appointments alternate between the two parties no matter which party controls the Governor's office or the Legislature. Thus, while the party with four seats tends to change with the governorships, the Court as a whole is basically non-partisan. (The Chief Justice, by the way, is a Republican and former State Attorney and Governor's Counsel for Christine Whitman).

The Court's unanimous decision on the Lautenberg issue, therefore, is only unfairly described as the decision of a Democrat-controlled court. There may be legitimate grounds for disagreement with the decision, but party loyalty really is not a legitimate basis for criticism in this instance. None of the Republicans dissented in any way. The unanimous Court simply did what it believed to be proper. They also handled the case quickly, which was most appropriate in a circumstance like this.

We will see what the US Supreme Court now does with the case. I continue to believe they will decline review. Someone asked me what I think of the Constitutional arguments being presented. I think they are trivial. The Equal Protection principals enunciated in Bush v. Gore, for example, will probably go down in history as sui generis and never be applied in any other context. For example, I do not believe Equal Protection will ever be held to violated because local officials apply different standards in different counties in interpreting state laws, there is never absolute consistency in these things. Moreover, even Bush v. Gore countenanced different voting methods (punch cards, paper ballots, voting machines, etc.) in different counties. As each of these methods has a statistically different error rate, the pretense that the Court was protecting the voter's rights to have all ballots cast treated the same in each county is simply laughable.

Non-lawyers tend to think of laws in black and white terms, i.e., there is a right answer and a wrong answer. Few lawyers or judges share this view, if only because it is too simplistic. Those of us in the legal realist school think it is much more useful to think in terms of winning arguments and losing arguments if we are advocates and in terms of moral right and wrong if we are judges (at least the honest ones). In this view, settled expectations, a concept that includes legal precedent, weighs heavily. In most of the cases people get worked about, however, there really are no settled precedents, so only the naive or dishonest claim that the judges' political, moral, class and economic views have nothing to do with the decisions they make. Judges are not automatons. Judges are human beings with individual world views based upon their own experiences and beliefs. No one can seriously dispute this basic fact of life.

An honest judge, however, moderates his or her personal views and interests by respecting precedent and by seeking to maintain a consistency in his or her own decisions. The Bush v. Gore majority struck me as a cynical and dishonest majority because they ignored their own precedents on the key federalism issue of state control v. federal control and the key Constitutional issue of Equal Protection and instead voted their political preference. For the ultimate question of whether their decision was right or wrong you will have to ask God (if you can find Her) or ask yourself based on another question: whose ox was being Gored?

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 02:57 PM

Man, I'm lovin' this!

The Supreme Court will probably rule in the Dems favor for screwing up 2000. Kind of like a make up call in American football!

Then the Dems loose the Jersey election anyway...

Man, when it rains... it pours!

But like I said earlier. The only way to get the meanies out is to elliminate their excuses and just let 'em screw up, so as far as I'm concerned, the sooner the better.

At some point in time the voters will have had enough...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: The Pooka
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 02:32 PM

Well, I have New Jersey's solution: the Nepal model.
************************************
Nepal King Sacks Prime Minister, Puts Off Election
Reuters
Oct 4 2002 1:38PM

KATHMANDU (Reuters) - Nepal's King Gyanendra on Friday sacked Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, abolished his council of ministers and indefinitely put off national elections that were set for November.
The king, in a nationally televised address, said he was assuming executive powers "for the time being." He called on political parties to suggest people to form a new interim government to run the Himalayan country until elections were eventually held.

"We have released Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, who has been incapable to conduct elections as scheduled earlier, from his post," Gyanendra said in the local Nepali language. "The council of ministers has been abolished. The elections set for November 13 have been put off."

The king's move followed a recommendation by Deuba's cabinet on Thursday to delay national elections scheduled for November by a year due to mounting Maoist violence that has killed more than 5,000 people.

The Maoists have been waging an increasingly deadly battle to overthrow the constitutional monarchy and install a communist republic in the poverty-stricken country.

10/04/02 13:36 ET
**************************************
But seriously folkiefolks, we should pause briefly from our quibbling um thatistosay, our erudite debating of detailed election procedures & politics, to be grateful that we are able to HAVE real elections in the first place, and that the peoples' choice *almost* always does prevail. // Thankyou. & Now, back to the fray!

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 02:27 PM

Nerd, et al

First of all, as in most cases reviewed by the USSC, the state courts get a chance at coming up with a solution first. And in our system of laws, the Supreme Court can review that decision. And this is indeed a Federal matter, since it is a US Senator, not a state office holder. I don't think anybody is arguing that state courts can't review the legislations intent and the resulting law.   

Secondly, I believe the Constitution leaves the governance of state wide elections to the legislature and not to a case of first impression in the courts. But giving the final interpretation to any law, state or Federal, is what the Supremes do...

Thirdly, the USSC has been under fire since it's existence, from Malbury-Madison, Mapp-Ohio, Miranda-Fla, to Roe-Wade and Gore-Bush. They may not like it, but Scalia probably has a wet spot on his robes, thinking about this.

Forthly, the "stalking horse" scenario is already being played out. What is Lautenberg but a stalking horse for whoever the Democratic Machine wants to put in during a special election to be held when the Machine decides it's ready. Christ! the only thing we're missing here is a signing bonus, and a Puerto Rican shortstop to be named at a future date.

Finally, you are absolutely right that Forrester should be of the least concern in this case. As must be reiterated to Dems time and time again, "It's about the Law, not about individuals"...

In any case, and whatever happens, we shall all have a position on the matter, and about half of us will be right...

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Nerd
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 12:40 PM

Whoa! Sorry about that, all! As you can see, there's some angst here... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Nerd
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 12:38 PM

Kendall,

The court is an interesting one. It is mostly Democratic, (4 Dems, 2 Reps, 1 ind), but most of the justices were appointed by Whitman, a Republican. So they have loyalties on both sides of this issue.

In the end, though, it didn't matter. They did just what every expert on the NJ supreme court said they would do, because it's what they usually do in cases like this! Yo people: there is very little controversy here outside of that being stirred up by Forrester's supporters!

The funny thing is, Republicans everywhere are trying to ram Forrester through the process even though they probably don't know a damn thing about him and care not a whit what he does to NJ. It's not about NJ to them, and it's not about Forrester, or Toricelli, or Lautenberg. It's about chairmanship of Senate committees, which is where the real power is (they would all go to Republicans if the GOP takes a majority in the Senate).

Well and good, but then they should stop bitching about NJ court procedures about which they know nothing and care even less! Honestly, some of our livelihoods are affected by who wins in New Jersey because we live and/or work here! If people are more concerned about federal politics, they can support Republican candidates winning if they want, but they should butt out of the routine operations of NJ laws which are safeguarding our rights, not theirs.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: kendall
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 12:21 PM

So, Doug, is the NJ court mostly dem. or rep.?

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Nerd
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 12:21 PM

Remember, Claymore and co., this was a UNANIMOUS decision by the NJ supreme court, only four of whom are Democrats, made in a matter of hours! You can make it out to be "typical Democrat-controlled NJ scum politics" if you want, but your head's in the sand (or somewhere else!) if you do. Obviously, the justices, whether Democrat or Republican, whether appointed by Whitman or Keane, whether they support Lautenberg or Forrester, think that putting Lautenberg on the ticket is NOT a violation of the law. You can't argue this was partisan, contested, or even controversial in their eyes!

As I pointed out earlier, the NJ legislature wrote a law that does not specify whether you can replace a candidate closer than 51 days to an election. All it says is that you can replace one up to 51 days before an election. The effect of this law is to put such cases where a substitution is made later up to the discretion of the courts, and it's conceivable that this was the law's intention. In any case, that's how it's always worked in NJ, and the courts almost always say yes. The only reason people are crying about absentee ballots and reprinting old ballots and yadda yadda yadda is because of the elevated stakes due to a 50-50 Senate. Take that away and you have a clear-cut case of the courts doing what they usually do no matter who stands to gain or lose.

As to the argument that anyone can step in at the last minute and win an election, that's bull. It takes months of advertising and publicity to even hope to win an election. The main reason they picked Lautenberg is that he's the only Democrat with a hope of winning because he only retired a couple of years ago and so has almost an incumbent's name recognition.   But try to put up a congressman from Newark and the folks in Camden will say "who?"

Is there are real danger of "Arnold Schwarzenegger" candidates who are famous in their own right? Let's get real. Arnold does not want to be a U.S. Senator right now, and if he did he could probably run in the normal manner and win. Meanwhile, it would NOT be easy for a party to conceal the fact that their secret plan is to substitute Arnold at the last minute in a senate race, and the minute the rumor gets out, the court still has the discretion to rule against the substitution. So the stalking horse theory is a bit lame.

As to the argument that the courts are taking away the legislature's power to regulate an election, two points. One, this makes no sense given that the court's function is to interpret and apply the laws written by the legislature. All the court is doing with this ruling is saying "we think this is what the legislature's law means and how it applies to this individual situation." That's what the court is for. You can argue that they interpreted the law badly, but not that they should not have the discretion to interpret it at all!

Second, to try to argue this position in an appeal before the US supreme court would be ludicrous, since this USSC has come under great fire for doing the same thing. The court, by ruling that the NJ Supreme Court had no right to give Lautenberg the go-ahead, would be essentially admitting that it also had no right to stop the recount in Florida. Either the courts CAN make rulings relating to election procedures or they CAN'T. Wanna see the US Supreme court argue that they can't? Me too, but don't hold your breath!

I think the appeal will be based on what they normally are based on: "We think this was a bad interpretation of the law: what do YOU think?" On that basis, the USSC could very well agree with the appeal and overturn the decision without saying anything about their own actions two years ago.

Frankly, I hope the USSC turns this case down, but I have come to expect blatant partisanism since the Presidential election, and I wouldn't be surprised if Bush lobbied them into ruling against Lautenberg, then stopping the hand-count of write-in votes to give the election to Forrester.

PLEASE, justices, prove me wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: NicoleC
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 11:39 AM

Doug, the diffence is a state court in NJ is adjucating a clear STATE issue, whereas the election in Florida was a state election issue being adjucated by a FEDERAL court.

I think it's interesting that all the Repubs that sneered at "liberal whining" over the 2000 election -- a clear case of a court being out of it's constitutional jurisdiction (even if you agree they should have gotten involved) -- are now whining that the NJ Court is partisan because the decision didn't go their way.

Since I don't know the exact particulars of the laws and state precedent, I can't guess if the decision was partisan or not -- my guess is not, most judges manage to leave politics out of their decisions; the few that don't get a big reputation for it. But I do think the case doesn't belong in the US Supreme Court for jurisdiction reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 10:48 AM

I appreciate Mr. Zurofsky's views of the current state of affairs in New Florida, but I have to say I did pick up a perceived bias on his part, which may color his views and to some extent the information he provides. To say that the Supremes acted in a "improper" and "partisan" manner is his view (which he is welcome to express) but is far afield in my view. As a cop I've had to live with more than a few 4-3 split decisions, and that law was just as good as 7-0, as any defense attorney will quickly remind you.

I actually hope the USSC does pick up the case, if only to provide some derivative guidelines for what is sure to be a flurry of laws within most conscienious state legislatures, to prevent this farce from occuring in their own state. I do agree that the Supremes will try and duck this issue any way they can, but since this is realy not a case of true National importance, they may let the issue "mature" and sit this one out. I also feel that the Republicans will pull out enough Senate seats to take control, if only from Republicans in other states marching to the polls to avenge themselves of what will be widely regarded as typical Democrat-controlled New Jersey scum politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: DougR
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 03:47 AM

Well Toad, I can't answer your question. I don't know who you are. But you say you are a lawyer, so I would assume you know what a law is. There must have been a reason that the state legislature in New Jersey passed the existing law. I doubt it was enacted solely to allow a duly elected candidate in a primary to withdraw from the general election becaue the polls showed he/she was going to lose.

I find it difficult to understand how ANY officer of the court would find that so hard to accept. To me, the New Jersey's Supreme Court decision smacks of the rotten politics most Mudcatters usually say they abhor. Some have said so, though they are admittedly not sympathetic to the Republican point of view. I salute them (including my friend Bobert).

"But then, who am I?"

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: GUEST,In Our Nation's Capitol
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 11:52 PM

Appropriately titled thread, as "Mickey Mouse" often gets many write-in votes. And write-ins is the issue I would address here:

Putting Lautenberg's name on the ballot in the Democratic party's place will make life much easier for New Jersey than if they don't. If he's not allowed on the ballot, a massive campaign to write in his name would probably take hold. Democrats would write in his name rather than waste a vote on Toricelli. Under those circumstance, Mr. Lautenberg might get several million write-in votes, and could very well win, but each write-in vote must be counted manually. Post-election tabulation in New Jersey would be a nightmare, as counting of the ballots would probably take many days, if not weeks.

"Can't happen!" you say? Look at what just happened in Washington, DC duiring the primaries, when incumbent mayor Tony Williams screwed up his petitions to be included in the Democratic primary. Instead, he initiated a write-in campaign. He not only won the Democratic primary, but got more votes than anyone else in the Republican primary. (But he was not allowed to capture both positions, because, wisely enough, the DC system said the voters should have a choice. The Republican party committee named Carol Schwarz to challenge Williams.) Vote counting took several days, and there are 14 times as many New Jerseyan as District residents.

If the Supreme Court chooses to keep Lautenberg from replacing Toricelli on the ballot, I predict a write-in campaign for Lautenberg will win the election for him. Angry New Jerseyans will rally to a battle cry of "Write in Lautenberg and stick it to the Supreme Court." (Actually, knowing New Jersey, the quote above is bowdlerized.) And if Lautenberg wins under such circumstances, the Supreme COurt and Bush's judiciary will have a true enemy in the Senate to deal with.

Signed, DeeCee person

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: toadfrog
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 11:01 PM

Well Doug, you are consistent. You have said, you want to live in a "republic, not a democracy." But I was brought up to believe in democracy as an ideal, and it seems to me, people have a right to be represented by someone who shares there ideas. And I am confident I would feel that way even if my party would lose under that principle. I think the people should choose. I don't want to live in a system where parties routinely squeak into power by technicalities.

And as a lawyer, I know a little about how statutes are construed. Before I accept the construction the Republicans are putting on this one, I want to hear not only the wording, but the history of the statute. And prior case law construing it. Because I very much doubt the intent of the NJ statute was to create technical obstacles to the will of the people.

But then, who am I?

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: kendall
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 09:09 PM

C.T.Whitman appointed democrats to the court? Hard to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: The Pooka
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 08:37 PM

Nerd, "I'm actually with Pooka on this one." Whoa! Thanks for your support & well-stated points. But, be careful of damage to yer reputation...:)
Claymore: in CT, with our very late withdrawal & replacement deadlines (10 & 7 days before election), we DO sometimes get "stalking horses", albeit for lower offices, e.g., state legislature ("How Low can you Go?"). "Stiffs", a Rebublican former-politico friend of mine called 'em. Put somebody in with a gentlemen's agreement to withdraw when you've found somebody stronger, following the close of the statutory "original-nomination" window-period. / 'Course then you're trusting the Gentleman(woman) to keep her/his word & bail out when you say so. Sometimes they change their minds. Nuttin' ya can do then. As Amos says: LOL!!
Atty. Bennet Zurofsky: thanks indeed for that fine, informed, "insider" legal & political analysis. / Tell me this: Do you think that it is, in a purist Constitutional sense (i.e., politics aside -- HA!), legitimately a Federal Question? I gather the Repubs now plead, among other things, that the NJ judiciary has violated the US Constitution's supposed allocation to the *state legislatures* of the power to regulate the time, place and manner of conducting elections for federal office. Does that bucket hold any water? / Thanks again for the expertise, counsellor.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: DougR
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 08:01 PM

Kendall: I think it still does not excuse the N. J. Supreme Court ruling as it did. Toricelli should never have run in the first place. If he hadn't I doubt Lautenburg would have run, but someone who would plan to serve full term would have been in the race rather than a guy who might serve two months.

You infer, by your question, that members of the court are beholden to the person who appointed them. Well that certainly wasn't the case in this instance. They showed their loyalty to their party, not to the law, IMO.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: kendall
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 07:44 PM

Former NJ governor, Christine Todd Whitman, republican, appointed 6 of the 7 judges on the NJ court. Does that tell you anything Doug?