3 users logged onTips: BlueJerseyDotCom (AIM) |      
Log In
Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Andrews suing for ballot placement (Updated X4) - Judge denies injunction

by: Juan Melli

Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:34:01 PM EDT



Update 4 [4/18]: Andrews' attorneys have filed an Amended Complaint (not an appeal) alleging improprieties by "most of the County Clerks in the selection process." Judge Jacobsen will have another plenary hearing on Tuesday.

Update 3: Statement from Lautenberg for Senator spokesperson Julie Roginsky:

"This lawsuit smacks of hypocrisy and desperation. Rob Andrews has bracketed with candidates -- including Senator Lautenberg -- in every federal race he's ever run.  Furthermore, when he was a failed candidate for Governor, he happily accepted bracketing in any county he could find. And now, Congressman Andrews is talking about giving voters a choice while trying to knock a fellow Democrat off the ballot and manipulating the ballot process in his own district to give party insiders, not voters, the choice of candidate.  Most remarkably, Congressman Andrews is bringing lawsuits only in the counties he couldn't win.  It is clear the Congressman wants one set of rules for himself and another for everyone else. Once again, Rob Andrews says one thing and does another."

Update 2: The judge has denied the ballot injunction. The complaint was only filed against the clerks in counties where Andrews did not have the line: Union, Mercer, Bergen, Morris, Monmouth, Essex, Hudson, Ocean, Middlesex, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex and Warren. It did not include the 7 southern counties where he did have the line. This looks incredibly hypocritical and transparently political.

Update: Rob Andrews just issued a statement saying "Unfortunately, some of the county leaders have attempted to exercise their undue influence to have my name placed in the Siberian portion of the ballot in violation of the clear and unambiguous language of the statute. We are committed to a process that gives voters the best opportunity to choose among all the candidates. The statute is clear. Adhering to the process set down by state law would give voters what they are entitled to - an open primary." From the statement:

The lawsuit, filed in Mercer County Superior Court, would require the 21 county clerks in New Jersey to place the U.S. Senate candidates in the same column (Row 1) on the June 3 ballot regardless of whether they are bracketed with party-backed county and municipal candidates within the 21 individual counties. Andrews said such bracketing is required by New Jersey law (NJSA 19:23-26.1).

Details are sketchy at this point, but sources say that Rob Andrews' campaign is suing to gain access to the column statewide. All of the 21 county clerks are currently meeting to discuss the situation and a judicial hearing is scheduled for 1:00pm.

For ballot placement purposes, US Senate and gubernatorial races appear to be in a different class. According to Title 19 of the New Jersey statutes, the Andrews campaign may have a valid case on their hands (emphasis added):

19:23-26.1.  Primary election for U.S. Senate and Governorship; placement of names of candidates on ballot
   In the case of a primary election for the nomination of a candidate for the office of United States Senator and in the case of a primary election for the nomination of a candidate for the office of Governor, the names of all candidates for the office of United States Senator or Governor shall be printed on the official primary ballot in the first column or horizontal row designated for the party of those candidates. [...]

   No candidate for nomination for any other office shall have his name printed  in the same column or horizontal row as the candidates for nomination for the  office of United States Senator or Governor.

This might also mean that no candidates would be able to bracket in the same column with either Andrews or Lautenberg. . Maybe we'll get that statewide open primary after all. (Or not. Read huntsu's interpretation.)
Juan Melli :: Andrews suing for ballot placement (Updated X4) - Judge denies injunction
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
That's not how I read it (0.00 / 0)
This says that all candidates for Senate have to be listed in Column A or Row 1 depending on how the lines are given.

It just means that a Senate candidate will always be in cell A1, and other Senate candidates must all be in a row or column with them.

So they could be in A1, B1, C1, D1, etc. or A1, A2, A3, A4, etc.

Without this rule, a County Clerk could put the favored candidate in A1, then unfavored candidates in B11, C19 and D3, forcing voters to search for their candidate and suppressing the vote.

It's about making sure they are all in the same line or column, preventing people from having to search for them.  


depends on how the word "party" is defined (0.00 / 0)
Would "Democrats for New Jersey" be a different party from "Regular Democratic Organization"?  Maybe party is defined in the statute elsewhere?

[ Parent ]
Yes, I think they are different "parties" (0.00 / 0)
Not in terms that we think of as political parties, but as parties to the primary.

[ Parent ]
Re: Parties (0.00 / 0)
I think you may be misreading this.

"the first column or horizontal row designated for the party of those candidates"

That does not make sense if read in the context you suggest.  I am not an election lawyer, though.


[ Parent ]
I found answer (0.00 / 0)
From 19:1-1. Definitions. As used in this Title:

"Political party" means a party which, at the election held for all of the members of the General Assembly next preceding the holding of any primary election held pursuant to this Title, polled for members of the General Assembly at least 10% of the total vote cast in this State.

I think this means all Democratic "sub-parties" and Andrews and Lautenberg both have to be in same column (since rows are used for office and columns for party).  But if this is true, it's weird nobody knew it!


[ Parent ]
It also explains (0.00 / 0)
why someone would want to keep Cresitello off the ballot.  Keeps them from having a "none of the above" vote.

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.

This should be settled law already (4.00 / 2)
When Doug Forrester sued for fairness in ballot position back in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the law compelled equal treatment of all gubernatorial candidates on the ballot. The end.

Andrews will win this suit.

And, shame on the county orgs for forcing him to sue.


weird and weirder (0.00 / 0)
In 1994, in a case involving Lautenberg, the statute is ruled unconstitutional.

In 2005, it appears to be given new life!

Only in New Jersey!!


[ Parent ]
Waaaaaah! (0.00 / 0)
Try being an incumbent and be told you must give the line to someone who wasn't even in the race during your county convention.  

That in effect is what Andrews is asking of Lautenberg here.

I was in incumbent thrown onto column 4 by Boss Joe in 2006.  Did I sue?  No.  Did I throw a tantrum?  Well maybe.  But I called folks and made sure people knew where to find me on the ballot.  The ballot position is the only source of a Boss's power.  But if Andrews can't handle not being in column 1, he should've been here last year when Boss Joe got column 2.  

I'm voting for the grownup in this race.  Frank Lautenberg.

One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.


So (0.00 / 0)
..."the ballot position is the only source of a Boss's power" but Andrews is childish for trying to break the stranglehold on that power? Come on. Be consistent.

And just a note on Juan's update. If a judge rules that there must be an open primary in some counties, you bet your bottom dollar that that rule would likely apply to the counties where Andrews has the line.


[ Parent ]
So (0.00 / 0)
Why only file in North Jersey counties and not all?

[ Parent ]
Ask him. (0.00 / 0)
I can't speak to that. It looks a little bit odd, but does anybody seriously think a ruling on this case would only apply in those counties Andrews challenged and not in all 21 of New Jersey's counties? Does anybody really believe in such a case where we'd have an open primary in 14 counties and the same old system in 7?

If so, I've got some oceanfront property in Nebraska to sell you.


[ Parent ]
I tried (0.00 / 0)
I tried to contact the Andrews campaign about this last night and didn't get a response.

[ Parent ]
That's good. (0.00 / 0)
It stinks that they haven't responded yet.

I wonder, though, do you dispute my other point about the uniform applicability of any ruling that might come forth from this?


[ Parent ]
no (0.00 / 0)
....But I do wonder if a judge is less likely to take a complaint seriously when it's so blatantly selective and political. This looks more like a stunt than a good faith effort to achieve a fair process.

[ Parent ]
We formed our own slate (0.00 / 0)
we didn't sit in the corner and wait to be rescued.  We made the Boss's column mean less than our own.  We got column 1 last year.  Not the Boss.  

I find Andrews position childish.  Yes I do.

One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.


[ Parent ]
Awesome (0.00 / 0)
This is a bit bigger than a county committee race, with all due respect.

And I don't dispute that you find Andrews's position childish. I think it looks odd myself.

What I do find inconsistent is that you demean Andrews for exercising his legal rights as a candidate to challenge a process, a challenge which, if successful, would bring to the entire state. Good government isn't situational.


[ Parent ]
oops, spelling (0.00 / 0)
that should read "would bring an open primary to the entire state"

[ Parent ]
With all due respect (0.00 / 0)
(although that isn't saying much) we won Council and Mayor seats last year as well as a Senate seat and two Assembly seats.  Boss Joe backed his candidates out of the race in the face of our slate.  

Like I said, I forgive you.  You have no idea what happened in North Jersey in the last 3 years.  

With all due respect, of course.

One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.


[ Parent ]
Be consistent? (0.00 / 0)
And you are?  Oh, that's right.  You just magically appeared recently when Andrews decided to run.  You don't remember when the Real Bergen Dems tried to break the stranglehold of power that Boss Joe thought he had on us all.  I forgive you, you're a newbie.....

One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.

[ Parent ]
No need to get defensive (4.00 / 1)
My comments aren't made with venom toward you, carolh, whose contributions to Blue Jersey I've read and respected for a long time.

In all fairness though, you still haven't answered my question.

It seems as though you, of all people and especially because of your repeated battles with Ferriero (for which I commend you, Senator Weinberg, and your allies), might support the legal theory behind Andrews's lawsuit. Sure, it looks cynical that he only targeted some counties. The point is, do you support or don't you support open primaries?

I do. If it takes a legal strategy born out of a cynical political tactic to help bring that about, so be it. Open primaries, at all levels, are worth it.


[ Parent ]
I don't have a problem (0.00 / 0)
with open primaries.  I do have a problem with someone like Andrews who should know how the process works acting like he has been wronged somehow because we held a convention and voted for his opponent who at the time was unopposed.

One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.

[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
The outrage does seem a little contrived here.

I'm glad we agree that if a judge should order a statewide open primary, that would be a good thing for the state, even if it wasn't the purest course taken to get that open end result. That's all I was saying.


[ Parent ]
Tempest in a Teapot.... (0.00 / 0)
...at least as regards this race.  These games are particularly silly in this race.

The folks in the south who know and like Andrews will probably vote for him.

Everyone in the state (especially a Dem primary voter) will know Lautenberg's name and a large majority (obviously especially in the north) will vote for Lautenberg.

If polls show Andrews is getting any traction at all, then Lautenberg can run a few commercials telling the objective, factual simple truth about how Andrews got into the race....and he'll be toasted.

Lautenberg wins by at least 15 points.  With or without a debate.

As for open and fair primaries.  YES!!!


Andrews Walking Into It (4.00 / 1)
I think that Andrews is, fairly or unfairly, setting himself up to be seen as untrustworthy in this race.  Lautenberg obviously sees it too, since he is using that line above.

He promised to support, withdrew his support.

He put his own wife on the ballot even though she didn't necessarily want to run.

He only files suit for open ballots in counties where he didn't have the county line.

Andrews is not running a winning campaign here, with his only winning point being the debate issue, and as soon as Lautenberg says OK to a debate -- and he will -- that issue is lost.


As we saw on the Repug side (0.00 / 0)
county organizations were rushing to senate endorsements before the filing deadline passed & they even knew who was in the race. I dont like the idea that we have 21 Democratic & 21 Repug parties in this state as applies to primary  ballot positioning for senate & congressional races. For those offices, bracketing is a farce.  

Not necessarily rushing ... (0.00 / 0)
Candidates usually declare long before the filing deadline because they have to see if they can raise the support and cash to make a serious run.  The counties ALWAYS give their lines around the time they did this year.

It also helps for the announced candidates to know whether they will have the line before filing deadline so they can decide to complete the filing deadline or not.  Often people know they cannot win without the line in particular counties, and it is not worth making the effort of time or money if they are not going to get it.

So I don't see it as rushing to give the line, but going with the normal process.


[ Parent ]
Has to be before petitions are circulated. (0.00 / 0)
The line goes with each county's official slogan, that goes on the petition.

Assuming nobody cheats on the petitions, filling out the slogan after there are signatures, candidates would have to know what slogan (such as Middlesex County Democratic Organization) before the petitions are circulated.

In the real world, where it seems the laws are intentionally written in a way to foster contempt, the slogans get added after the signatures are there. But it still has to be before the petitions are filed.


[ Parent ]
Confusing (4.00 / 1)
Election law is confusing, perhaps by design...but this timeline from the Division of Elections (found at http://www.njelections.org/cal... ) seems to indicate that 10 April is the deadline to "amend petitions of nomination in matters of substance or of form" which, I would assume, would include the ability to change slogans even though the deadline to file signatures is 7 April.

[ Parent ]
ADVERTISEMENT
Featured Stories
Standing Up Not Down
by: Jason Springer - Mar 14
4 Comments

Blue Jersey Radio

The Voice of NJ Politics
» Next show: Tues @ 8:00p
» Hosts: Jeff Gardner & Jason Springer
» Call in: (646) 652-2773
» iTunes Subscribe | Archives


Follow us on Twitter @bluejersey

Hate Ads? Make them disappear.
Subscribe:

Blue Jersey Essentials

 EDITORIAL DIRECTOR
 Rosi Efthim

 TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
 Jason Springer

 STAFF WRITERS
 Adam L a/k/a/ clammyc
 bytheshore73
 Hopeful
 Jeff Gardner
 Scott Weingart
 Senator Loretta Weinberg
 Vincent Solomeno
 Jason Springer
 Rosi Efthim

» About | FAQ | In the News
» 
» Tips:
» Front Page RSS Feed
» User Diaries RSS Feed
» Blue Jersey on Twitter » Blue Jersey on Facebook » Blue Jersey T-shirts
ADVERTISEMENT

Blog Roll

» Alicia Menendez
» Alive and Kickin
» Barista of Bloomfield Ave
» Blog the Fifth
» Capitol Quickies
» The Center of NJ Life
» Channel Surfing
» Daily Newarker
» The Englewood Report
» Frank Lobiondo Record
» Fred Snowflack
» Freedom to Tinker
» Fresh Jersey (Mike Kelly)
» Garden State Grapevine
» Gloucester City News
» Green Jersey
» Herb Jackson
» Hoboken Journal
» Hoboken Now
» The Inside Clamdigger
» Jersey Blogs
» Lassiter Space
» Latinos NJ
» Middletown Mike
» More Monmouth Musings
» NJ Domestic Partnership
» NJ Politics Unusual
» NJ Voices: Policy Watch
» On Our Radar
» The Opinion Mill
» Other Spaces
» Plainfield Plaintalker
» PolitickerNJ
» Retire Garrett
» Ruins of Trenton
» Senator Ray Lesniak
» Stovetop Diplomacy
» Sustainable Cherry Hill
» The Subversive Garden
» Teaneck Progress
» Trenton Kat
» We Don't Need Permission
» Xpatriated Texan

Cartoons

» M.e. Cohen
» Jimmy Margulies
» Drew Sheneman
» Rob Tornoe
Search




Advanced Search













Ads do not constitute
an endorsement
from Blue Jersey.



Blue Jersey Gear

Visit the Blue Jersey store. T-shirts, bumper stickers & more!


Shirts available in dozens of styles and colors.

Visit the Blue Jersey Store

Contact Us
» Editor: 
» Press releases: 
» Advertising inquiries: 
» Tips:
About Us
» About Blue Jersey
» Blue Jersey in the News
» FAQ/Usage
» 
» RSS Feed

Misc Stuff
» Blue Jersey Radio
» Blue Jersey on Twitter
» Facebook Group
» MySpace Page
» NJ Politics 101 Wiki
» Blue Jersey Podcast
» Screaming Carrot Award
» Contribute to Blue Jersey
5735 satisfied users, visits and 0 subpoenas served since Sept 28, 2005
© Blue Jersey, powered by the mighty SoapBlox.