Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Dept. reviews N.J. ballot dispute
United Press International ^ | 10/3/2002 1:54 PM | UPI Washington Politics and Policy Desk

Posted on 10/03/2002 7:42:49 PM PDT by jpthomas

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 (UPI) -- The Justice Department is reviewing a request that Attorney General John Ashcroft intervene in the New Jersey ballot dispute, the department said Thursday.

A GOP letter asks Ashcroft to file suit under the Uniform and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act to keep New Jersey Democrats from replacing Sen. Robert Torricelli on the ballot.

A department spokesman said the letter is from the Republican members of the New Jersey congressional delegation.

"The Justice Department just received a copy of the letter and it has been given to the proper individuals and it will be reviewed" to see what, if any, action should be take, the spokesman said.

In a separate action, New Jersey Republicans asked the Supreme Court of the United States Thursday to block the substitution of Torricelli on that state's ballot.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that state Democrats could replace Torricelli, who has dropped out of the race because of ethics problems and declining support. State Democrats immediately picked former Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who retired in 2000, to replace him as their nominee.

But Republican nominee Doug Forrester asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block the state court's ruling until he can file his case before the justices that the ballot cannot legally be changed this close to an election.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: ashcroft; forrester; torrecelli
Here's a link to the pertinent federal law: UNIFORMED AND OVERSEAS CITIZENS ABSENTEE VOTING ACT (UOCAVA)

I didn't see the deadline on the states to provide the ballots explicitly mentioned in UOCAVA, but it references Chapter 34 of Title 39, USC with regard to balloting materials. The time constraint must be buried in there somewhere. Two relevant excerpts:

SEC. 102. STATE RESPONSIBILITIES.

Each State shall --

(1) permit absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters to use absentee registration procedures and to vote by absentee ballot in general, special, primary, and runoff elections for Federal office;

SEC. 104. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE STATES TO MAXIMIZE ACCESS TO THE POLLS BY ABSENT UNIFORMED SERVICES VOTERS AND OVERSEAS VOTERS.

To afford maximum access to the polls by absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters, it is recommended that the States --

(5) expedite processing of balloting materials with respect to absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters;

SEC. 105. ENFORCEMENT.

The Attorney General may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court for such declaratory or injunctive relief as may be necessary to carry out this title.

1 posted on 10/03/2002 7:42:49 PM PDT by jpthomas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jpthomas
Does this mean that until the USSC decides whether to rule on this that NO NEW BALLOTS are being printed?
2 posted on 10/03/2002 7:44:31 PM PDT by princess leah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpthomas
An earlier thread said that FNC had reported that Ashcroft had sent a letter to the NJSC, asking them to give their reasons for disregarding the federal law that says that military ballots have to be sent out no later than 35 days prior to an election.

That's the only source so far for this info.

3 posted on 10/03/2002 7:51:27 PM PDT by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: princess leah
This is a separate issue from the one filed with the Supreme Court. The enforcement action would be pursued by the Justice Department. One possible step would be to obtain an injunction to stop the printing of new ballots. It depends on what the Justice Department decides to pursue. I think it would be argued in Federal Court, but I'm not sure which one.

I wouldn't get my hopes up too much. I think at the moment that the DOJ is probably simply investigating the situation to see if the law has been violated, and if so, determining what remedy, if any, to seek.

4 posted on 10/03/2002 7:52:20 PM PDT by jpthomas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

TAKE BACK THE SENATE!
VOTE OUT THE DEMS!

DONATE TODAY!!!.
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD


5 posted on 10/03/2002 8:23:25 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpthomas
The Attorney General may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court for such declaratory or injunctive relief as may be necessary to carry out this title. It's so obvious. Since "shall" means "may," then "may" means "shall not."

I'm surprised you don't know this.

6 posted on 10/03/2002 8:27:05 PM PDT by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
See Bush Vs Hillsbough County on the Federal law on sending out Ballots
7 posted on 10/03/2002 8:55:15 PM PDT by scooby321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson