KRamsauer
TreoCentral Staff

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734 |
quote: Originally posted by jhappel
Before you go and spread misinformation, especially from the most biased of news organizations, Fox, make sure you get your facts straight.
adderx99 quoted Fox News
New Jersey law states quite expicitly that a candidate can be changed prior to 51 days before an election. It is completely silent on what happens closer to the election than 51 days. Just because the law does not say you CAN do something doesn't mean that you CAN'T.
I agree that just because the law doesn't outlaw something doesn't mean it's illegal, but someone has to have the authority to make the ruling. In this case, I'm not sure the court is it.
Segments from New Jersey's law (which took a ton of time to look up, so you better enjoy it! ):
N.J.S.A. 19:13-20 In the event of a vacancy, howsoever caused, among candidates nominated at primaries, which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election, or in the event of inability to select a candidate because of a tie vote at such primary, a candidate shall be selected in the following manner: and then it goes on to list a whole mess of things, including the party nominating the new nominee
If the legislature wanted to allow for later substitutions why would it put the number in? Furthermore, I doubt the legality of the NJ court to decide this matter, filling in for law that was never written. From our good ol' Constitution, article 1, 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 choosing Senators. (emphasis added, of course).
I'm not seeing how the courts have the power to force a name added to the ballot. Unless the NJ legislature has delegated the authority to the supreme court of NJ, the SCOTUS has no choice but to rule the SCONJ was beyond its constitutional boundaries in its recent decision.
|