CYNICALLY PESSIMISTIC:

Don't Change the New Jersey Ballot (William G. Mayer, 10/02/02, NY Times)

Over the next few days and weeks, we are likely to encounter a lot of arguments, and a lawsuit or two, claiming that democracy and the Constitution demand that the Democratic Party in New Jersey be allowed to put on the ballot a new candidate in place of Robert G. Torricelli, who dropped out of the race for the United States Senate on Monday. Such arguments should be rejected.

The United States Supreme Court has never held that prospective candidates have an unlimited right to appear on a state's general election ballot. While the court has ruled that some kinds of restrictions on placing a name on a ballot violate the Constitution, it has, on many other occasions, upheld such rules. State statutes that prohibit a candidate from running as an independent in the general election if he also voted in another party's primary, for example, have been ruled legal.

Over the last two decades, the court has generally applied a kind of balancing test in which a court must first determine whether and how a particular restriction infringes on important constitutional rights, like the right to vote. Then, if it finds that such an infringement exists, it must be weighed against a variety of legitimate interests that states clearly have in limiting the number and type of candidates on their ballots in order to ensure an orderly and efficient election.

The Democrats' case is so weak that you have to assume they'll win. You can already hear the Court's saccharine language about "fundamental fairness" and all that driveL...and then we go to the mattresses... Posted by Orrin Judd at October 2, 2002 8:13 AM