Nobody is being prevented from voting here.

If the Democratic candidate is an amoral crook who would currently be occupying a cell as the bitch of Olaf the Large if it weren't for the fact that his wretched ass was holding down the Democratic majority in the Senate, whose fault is that? Is it now called "disenfranchising" a voter if the candidate on the ballot isn't somebody who might have a better chance of winning?

The kind of bait-and-switch that is being done is exactly what the law was written to prevent. It's no different than being allowed to go back into the deck if your poker hand stinks and pick whatever card you like.

The Democrat's next step will be in New Jersey. Standard Operating Procedure. Wipe their butts with the election laws of New Jersey, raining lawyers down like locusts and throwing it into the state Supreme Court in the hopes that the law can be morphed into whatever suits their purposes. Worked--for a while--in Florida.

Boy, that didn't take long...