US Supremes can't appeal NJSC

Linda Chavez, Fox News | October 2, 2002 | Fox News

[TLBSHOW]

VOTE OUT THE RATS

[Helms]

Chavez is still just picking up part time work and is a rather lazy part-timer on this.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

The voters rights are being ignored and nobody has recognized that issue thus far. We haven't seen anything more than questions pertaining to fairness for each candidate when we are disregarding the fairness involved with the voters. Torricelli's name is on military ballots and absentee ballots (some of which have already been returned). Ballots in many counties have already been printed. How would a Torricelli substitute affect our military's ability to vote? Is the opportunity to substitute more important than allowing our national protectors the chance to have a voice in who controls their futures?

And yes you are correct, appeals can be made to SCOTUS.

[Admin Moderator]

Don't know how to get moderator's attention. Suggestions?

Hit abuse. Every abuse reports is read and dealt with as soon as possible. Pings and freepmails are handled only as we have time and may sit for hours or days before we can get to them. If you want to have your own thread pulled, please sign the abuse report. We probably will not pull this thread because it already has so many replies. Thanks.

[Redmen4ever]

A possible ground for an appeal to the federal court (and I don't think the appeal need be to the U.S. Supreme Court) is Article I Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution which says, in part, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof,..."

The New Jersey Supreme Court might decide that the law, N.J. state constitution, and the U.S. Constitution allows the Governor to change the administration, or the N.J. Supreme Court to change the administration of the election by decree. But, the final arbitrator of what the U.S. Constitution says ("means") is the U.S. Supreme Court, meaning this is potentially a federal matter.

I presume the argument of the governor is that, notwithstanding the language in the N.J. statute, the governor has some discretion in the administration of an election. For example, if a very bad natural disaster made the administration of the election problematic, the governor could postpone the vote.

In the present case, the problem of a withdrawal of a candidate from a race was surely considered by the legislature in its consideration of all the factors that go into the orderly administration of an election. I doubt that there will be more than one vote on the N.J. Supreme Court acceding to the governor's petition.

Thinking this all the way through, the strategy of the Democrats in New Jersey might be to be denied to make the change, in order to then ask the people of the state to vote for Torricelli because he will, upon being re-elected, resign so that the governor could then fill the vacancy with Lautenberg.

[dmz]

isn't public opinion already against the religion?

[DonQ]

Once again Chavez has completely screwed it up. Of course, the US Supreme Court can't appeal the NJ decision. The Supreme Court can't appeal anything! But if one of the litigants in the NJ case appeals to the Supreme Court .....

This is a case involving the election of a US Senator, you bet the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. Chavez must have slept through civics class.

[krodriguesdc]

well - that's what she was informing me of - and that Saudi and other Islamic countries understand and have learned that the smears against Islam are coming from orchestrated efforts by the gay media...

it makes perfect sense, too - there is ZERO tolerance for homosexuality in Islam!

so why would the gays in the media miss a golden opportunity to claim patriotism while at the same time attempt to turn the public opinion against Islam - a religion that has no use for homosexuality?

and NO! - I do not believe that public opinion is against the Islamic religion...

[krodriguesdc]

LOL

[Redbob]

Linda Chavez is no dummy, but federal law overrides state law in the issue of voting rights and voting procedures, if it can be argued that dumping existing New Jersey law could harm any NJ voter.

[katze]

I have absolutely no basis for argument, but can you provide an example that would be outside their jurisdiction? I'm curious, not wanting to argue, just curious.

[MeekOneGOP]

This is bum scoop. Elections of US Senators have to meet US Constitutional requirements. I imagine the 1st appeal would have to go to whatever Circuit Court before hitting the Supremes. If the NJSC orders anything other than allowing Lautenberg to be a write in candidate, the USSC will overturn this faster than they did SCOFLAW.

I agree. Likely it will have to go to SCOTUS. There are 4 DIMS and 3 GOPS on the SCONJ, and I understand the 3 are what the media would call "moderates", i.e., LIBERALS....

[bootless]

And now Rush is talking about a Dem idea floating around to move the election to November *2003*?!

Time to get out the loafers again, folks. Have fun storming the castle!

[Dave S]

The issue is not that the switch is harming the Republicans right to vote for Forrester. The issue is that the switch is harming the Republican's likelyhood of winning.

As much as I think this whole thing stinks, I dont think anyone can argue that some action by Toricelli is harming their likelihood of winning the election. The elections are held for the benefit of the voters, not the nominees. And as you said the Republicans are not being harmed as they can still vote for the candidate they were going to vote for. Anyone else can still vote for the Republican candidate. No one has right to win. They better have a better challenge than that.

[RooRoobird14]

Linda Chavez is a good conservative, but when did she become a Constitutional expert?

[Polybius]

And as you said the Republicans are not being harmed as they can still vote for the candidate they were going to vote for. Anyone else can still vote for the Republican candidate. No one has right to win. They better have a better challenge than that.

The rest of the argument was that you don't change the rules of the game in the middle of the game. Nobody has a right to win but you do have the right to insist that the law in place at the beginning of the contest be followed.

[txrangerette]

Anything at all, that they judge to
be strictly a state/local matter, with
no federal, constitutional issues to
be addressed, would not be accepted by
them. There are multiple thousands of
such cases I am sure. A silly, yet a
true example: you get a traffic cite
& contest it. You say the cop's radar
had to be wrong or else he's lying,
since your speedometer was under the
limit. You know the Supremes couldn't
care less. I warned you it was silly!

[txrangerette]

Please see my post #136. Every future
election case would come under the
NJSC's ruling in this case. Imagine
if a Christie Whitman was running for
Senate against Torch & some moderate-
to-conservative, popular or admired
Dem replaced him. Not every election
is so polarized, so cut-and-dried. I
get into that in #36. Ballots not the
same for all voters? No way.

[BlueNgold]

Legally there are no issues to dispute if he resigns within 30 days of the election and the new election is scheduled in time to place the new Senator in their seat at the beginning of the next congress. How the dems would hold a primary in time to allow that is problematic, but the possibility exists that it could happen. As for planning an election next November - that would leave one of the NJ seats open, not a good move for a governor to leave his people unrepresented in the Senate.

I hope and pray that the GOP can find a win to shift the Senate by more than 1 vote and make all of this machination on the dem side even more foolish.

[Brices Crossroads]

As I said in my previous post, it is Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution which governs elections for Senator and U.S. Represetative. It provides that such elections shall take place "in the manner...prescribed in each state by the legislatur thereof". Congress may at any time alter these state laws with one narrow exception. The New Jersey state law, unless changed by the Congress (which has not been done here) is entitled to the force of Constitutional law in virtue of Article I and the Supreme Court of the United States is bound to enforce it. This is the avenue which should be pursued.

Insofar as your observation that there is a big difference between an election for Pesident and U.S. Senator, that is not true as a matter of Constitutional law. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 also provides that preidential electors shall be chosen "in such manner as the legislature" of each state shall direct. (the only difference between its counterpart in Article I, Section 4 is that Congress may not constitutionally alter the procedures of the state legislature.) In just the same way that the Supreme Court of Florida was not the final word, neither is the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The USSC should have the final word, if it finds the NJ Supreme Court has altered rules for Senatorial elections prescribed by the State legislature.