Replies

Oversized ping to the Wall Street Journal editorial page (sadly, they didn't include it as part of OpinionJournal; I would have loved to see Steven Platzer contort himself on this one).

If you're already here, good. I simply pulled this mega-mini-ping list from those that I discussed this with previously.

Thanks for the ping!

The New Jersey court may have been emboldened by the Supreme Court's refusal in Bush v. Gore to clearly affirm the sovereignty of state legislatures in writing rules for the selection of federal candidates.

The SCOTUS ruling in this instance was 5-4. I can believe the NJSC would think it worth a try to test it again and see if one of the justices would switch.

I do think it's very important that a clear message be sent to state courts that they can't nullify state laws concerning elections. We thought that had been done in the case of Bush vs. Gore in FL, but apparently not.

I've a hunch that NJ voters are going to set this one straight without any help from the SCOTUS, but there may well be future instances where the voters are not given the opportunity to set it straight.

Even this election cycle, HI has climbed aboard the fast express toward a banana republic. HI is attempting to get an exemption so they won't have to have a special election for Patsy Mink's seat--they don't want to spend the $$$.

Thanks for the ping. I'm surprised that the WSJ ran this editorial...they aren't the most conservative paper. Very good article. And this is true:

if the Supreme Court doesn't clear this up now, it probably will have to sooner or later.

This is my first time online all day....so I'm playing catch up with any "news" on this....I'm assuming, right now, all's quiet.