Politics and Policy:

  • NY Times: G.O.P. Looks to Supreme Court for Delay in Torricelli Ruling
  • The decision of the NJ Supreme Court (in PDF format)

    Here’s a choice excerpt…

      And the court being of the view that [it] is in the public interest and the general intent of the election laws to preserve the two-party system and to submit to the electorate a ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties as well as all other qualifying parties and groups. Kilmurray v. Gilfert, 10 N.J 435, 441 (1952)

    Two things are disturbing in this decision.

    1. That the NJ Supremes wrote such a short decision… A case of this magnitude deserved much greater explanation than the court provided, especially when the court decided to ignore statutes

    2. That the court has affirmed a previous decision from the 1950’s that stated the policy of the state of New Jersey is the preservation of the two-party system.

    Think about it people! Most states try to discourage third parties (I think unconstitutionally but that is another issue) but most don’t come right out and tell you that they intend to limit the choices of the people.

    The US Supremes need to smack this down hard. The NJ Supreme Court has shown that they do not respect the law and do not respect the rights of third party candidates.

    I (like I think many Americans) do not want to see the Repubs get control back of the Senate, but I not at the cost of the rule of law. If the NJ demos had any character at all they wouldn’t have done this and instead would have encouraged their members to vote for one of the third party candidates.