The issue then had to do with ballot position. When Jim Treffinger dropped out of the Republican primary (after it was revealed he was under investigation by the U.S. Attorney's office in Newark) a number of the Republican County organizations that had en
dorsed Treffinger and given him the top line on the ballots in their counties, decided to substitute Forrester's name for Treffinger's on the top line.  At this point, I am not absolutely sure what the statutory issue was, but there are statutory deadline
s for county clerks governing the printing of ballots. FRANK ASKIN.

Prof. Frank Askin
Constitutional Litigation Clinic
Rutgers Law School/Newark
(973) 353-5687

"Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu> 10/07/02 12:20PM >>>

	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.