I wonder how likely it is that parties will try to exploit that.  They'd
have to convince a nominee to voluntarily withdraw.  They'd have to
convince a politician that the polls are right and he/she can't turn it
around, which is hard to do to a politician with an ordinary size ego.
Also, absent extreme circumstances like the one with Torricelli and the
scandal, they'd have to factor in the PR hit they'd take for so obviously
manipulating the process.

Part of the reason I'm not worried about opening the floodgates is that
parties could have been doing this for years now by pressuring the nominee
to withdraw prior to the statutory deadline, yet have not been doing so.
After all, parties often know more than 34/48 days prior to the election if
a nominee isn't working out.

What troubles me is that, even in the rare case where extraordinary events
require a nominee to pull out, and there's no conscious gamesmanship, we
are nonetheless doing an end run around the primary process and
susbtituting backroom deals for the primary voters' choice.  Why wouldn't
the best solution in such situations be to postpone the election and have a
special election?  If cost is an issue, you could do what the NJ Sup Ct did
and impose costs on the petitioning party.

I suppose you could object that turnout would drop in a special election,
and the party which benefits from low turnout (usually the GOP) could thus
unduly benefit by being the one to screw up the election schedule.  Also, I
could see a cost rationale for preferring late substitution over a special
election every time a minor party candidate withdraws  (it might be
financially burdensome on the Natural Law party, e.g.).   Anyway, just a
thought. SJM

Mark Rush wrote:

Legal wrangling notwithstanding, I think Will is right:  this decision
opens the door (potentially) to chaos.  While the NJ court urged that
voters needed to have a real choice, there is also a strain of
constitutional thought that says that they are also entitled to an
orderly, non-confusing electoral process.

The current decision opens the door for parties essentially to override
the nomination process if they don't like the candidate they have
running.

Mark E. Rush
Professor of Politics
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA  24450
http://home.wlu.edu/~rushm
(540) 458-8904
(540) 458-8639 (fax)

rick.hasen@lls.edu 10/04/02 01:38PM >>>

another view of the New Jersey situation, this one from George Will.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41199-2002Oct3.html

--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html