On the Jersey situation, there is a good argument for what the Jersey court did. As Karen (KLP) says, why not 0 rather than 51. The reason for the 51 and why it could, in theory at least, go to 0 is the reason is the need for enough time to redo the ballots if a party chooses to replace one candidate with another. As technologies change, that time could easily reduce, certainly not to 0 but to something much less than 51.
Moreover, no one has said that, once the primaries are concluded, a party cannot change it's candidates. Unusual. Absolutely. Also, I would be surprised if much switching actually takes place after a flurry of "I told you sos." Losing candidates are not likely to let the party replacement them; the sense they can always pull it off.
Frankly, I think the issue goes back to the Florida election, in which the US Supreme Court said that state courts were not the proper place to adjudicate the meaning of state statutes. Only the legislature could do that.
That twisted logic applied, precisely, in this case, the Jersey case. Perhaps the second best evidence that this incarnation of the Supremes is far more political than recent previous incarnations is this. Of course, the best evidence is the set of Florida decisions. |
