<x-charset utf-8>It is appalling that some of us are letting our political preferences skew our opinions on this matter. I am glad that Steven brought up the Torricelli situation. I hope some of you think back to your views on that situation and see if you can honestly and intelligently rationalize those views against your now polar opposite position.
************
Bryan Mercurio
Faculty of Law
University of New South Wales
Sydney
Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu on behalf of Sholk, Steven H.
Sent: Fri 6/4/2004 12:51 PM
To: ban@richardwinger.com; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Cc:
Subject: RE: voters are innocent victims and should not be punished
Richard Winger's argument was used by the New Jersey Supreme
Court in New Jersey Democratic Party v. Samson, 175 N.J. 178,
814 A.2d 1028(2002) the case in which Senator Torricelli withdrew
his candidacy on Sept 30, 2002, which was outside the statutory
window for the Democratic party to replace a candidate.
The New Jersey Supreme Court held:
"We do not believe that our Legislature intended to limit voters'
choice in a case where there is sufficient time to place a new
candidate on the ballot and conduct the election in an orderly
manner. There is no question but that the 'full and free
expression of the popular will' (citation omitted) is furthered
by allowing the substitution of a new candidate for the United
States Senate chosen by the State Committee."
In the Torricelli case, there was an unexpected turn of events.
Does this reasoning apply in the absence of a sudden change of
facts, and the candidate had sufficient time to place his or her
name on the ballot?
Steven H. Sholk, Esq.
Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C.
One Riverfront Plaza
Newark, New Jersey 07102-5496
(973) 596-4639 (Phone)
(973) 639-6338 (Fax)
ssholk@gibbonslaw.com (e-mail)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of
ban@richardwinger.com
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:30 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: voters are innocent victims and should not be punished
I thank Jerry Goldfeder for having stimulated this
interesting exchange about ballot access. I am
surprised that anyone on this list favors keeping Bush
off the Illinois ballot. The posters don't
acknowledge that the voters are being harmed by such
shenanigans. When a candidate with substantial voter
support is kept off the ballot, the voters who desire
to vote for that candidate are disenfranchised. Where
is the concern on this list for the voters? Have we
forgotten what the function of ballots is? Ballots
are for the purpose of letting voters express their will.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
This Electronic Message contains privileged client attorney
communications from the law firm of Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger
& Vecchione. The information is intended to be for the use of the
addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure,
copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
</x-charset>