Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (51075)	10/11/2002 10:59:46 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

In the NJ case, the absentee ballots had already been shipped out with Torricelli's name on them. Only a portion and the court required the Dems to pay for the costs of the name change, including the absentee ballot problems. Moreover, no one has said that, once the primaries are concluded, a party cannot change it's candidates. Unusual. Absolutely. Um, isn't that a matter for state election law to rule on? As I understand it, state law does not address this situation. The only law that came up in the most recent cases was the 51 day law. Presumably, that means parties could, if they wished, replace before that point. Since the NJ legislature and SCOTUS stayed out of this one, I don't see where this 'issue' comes into play. Not related to my point. Since the NJ legislature and SCOTUS stayed out of this one, I don't see where this 'issue' comes into play. Nor is this one.