Subject: Re: What statutory deadline did the Forrester campaign supposedly try to avoid in April? |
From: Rick Hasen |
Date: 10/7/2002, 10:23 AM |
To: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu> |
CC: "Election-Law (election-law@majordomo.lls.edu)" <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu> |
Reply-to: rick.hasen@mail.lls.edu |
What statutory deadline did the Forrester campaign supposedly try to avoid in April? I've been reading this weekend about the charges that in April the Forrester campaign tried to avoid a statutory deadline using much the same arguments that the Democrats used to substitute Lautenberg (see the N.Y. Times excerpt below). I'm not sure, though, exactly which statute they were trying to avoid -- it's not the 19:13-20 statute, which is at issue now, because that applies only to general election candidates; and my quick search through Title 19 for references to "51" or "51st" didn't reveal any other statute that might seem to cover this. Can anyone give me a quick pointer? Thanks,
Eugene
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."
Mr. Genova said the Forrester campaign was trying to have it both ways. But Mr. Sheridan said today that the two situations were not analogous because "no primary ballots had been issued" in April.
-- 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