According to this statute (19:3-10), Lautenberg isn't the legal Democratic nominee even if the 51/48 day deadline is thrown out by judicial fiat. It states:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19:3-10. Name not printed on ballot; next highest name printed

If it shall be determined in a manner hereinafter provided, that the nomination for an office of a successful candidate at any primary election is null and void, and if such determination shall have been made ten days before the election at which the candidates nominated at such primary election are to be voted for, an order shall be made by the court or judge making such determination prohibiting the printing of the name of such candidate on the ballot to be used at such election, and the name of the candidate for nomination or party position at such primary election receiving the next highest number of votes shall thereupon be printed upon the ballot as the nominee for the office.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Now I've hunted and hunted for the breakdown of the Democratic primary results, but to no avail. Every news report I've found merely states that Torricelli ran unopposed. However, if you look at two different pages of the NJ Division of Elections website, it is clear that someone else received votes.

Compare this page: "Total primary ballots cast" with this page: "Official Primary election results". There are over 60,000 Democratic votes unaccounted for in the "official results", plus about 30,000 unaccounted for Republican votes (so those 60,000 votes aren't 'cross-overs'). Who did those 60,000 Democrats vote for? It seems that by NJ law, whoever received the most of those votes should be the de facto Democratic nominee - NOT Lautenberg.