
Carol Beecher
16:29 - 17:20
"The Supreme Court specifically chose not to adopt the portion of the Superior Court's decision as to how the names should appear on the ballot, and that left the decision to the discretion of the Division. The Division distinguished between the two candidates by using Mr. Sullivan's full name, omitting his party affiliation and adding the incumbent designation for Senator Sullivan. This was done to maximize the differentiation between these candidates so that we, we did not want any voters to be confused between the two candidates."
“The Supreme Court specifically chose not to adopt the portion of the Superior Court's decision as to how the names should appear on the ballot, and that left the decision to the discretion of the Division. The Division distinguished between the two candidates by using Mr. Sullivan's full name, omitting his party affiliation and adding the incumbent designation for Senator Sullivan. This was done to maximize the differentiation between these candidates so that we, we did not want any voters to be confused between the two candidates.”
The Superior Court and Supreme Court have ruled on this matter, and the Division acted immediately to place Mr. Sullivan back on the ballot. The issue of how the name would appear on the ballot was discussed at both the Supreme Court and the Superior Court. The Supreme Court specifically chose not to adopt the portion of the Superior Court's decision as to how the names should appear on the ballot, and that left the decision to the discretion of the Division. The Division distinguished between the two candidates by using Mr. Sullivan's full name, omitting his party affiliation and adding the incumbent designation for Senator Sullivan. This was done to maximize the differentiation between these candidates so that we, we did not want any voters to be confused between the two candidates.