FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Posted on 10/04/2002 6:14:09 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Republicans asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to stop former U.S. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg from being placed on the Nov. 5 ballot.
In Trenton, meanwhile, a state judge pushed forward plans to print and mail new ballots, saying she had no alternative unless the high court takes action.
Republicans appealed to the nation's highest court in an effort to overturn the 7-0 decision by New Jersey's Supreme Court on Wednesday, a decision allowing Democrats to replace U.S. Sen. Robert G. Torricelli with Lautenberg even though the legal deadline for switching candidates has passed.
Top Democrats argue that the state's high court has already ruled, and that Republicans should drop all legal challenges and get on with the campaign. There are 32 days left before Election Day.
Lautenberg attempted to steer the focus away from the courtroom and onto the campaign trail by challenging the Republican candidate, Douglas R. Forrester, to a debate.
The request for the nation's highest court to intervene was part of a three-pronged legal attack by Republicans on Thursday to keep the 78-year-old Lautenberg from replacing Torricelli, who abruptly withdrew from the race Monday amid mounting questions over his ethics.
New Jersey's Supreme Court - composed of four Democrats, two Republicans, and an independent - said in its decision Wednesday that having the names of candidates from both major political parties was paramount to democracy. State law requires any ballot changes to be made at least 51 days before an election. But the court found the law did not rule out the possibility of allowing a political party to fill a vacant candidacy after the deadline.
That decision, however, only triggered more legal action.
Besides asking the U.S. Supreme Court to act, Republicans requested that U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, a former Republican U.S. senator, find that the New Jersey's top court violated a federal law designed to protect the rights of overseas and military voters.
The third prong is a lawsuit the GOP and Forrester intend to file in U.S. District Court in Trenton today on behalf of overseas military personnel who have requested absentee ballots. Changing the ballots now, they argue, would nullify hundreds of votes already cast by military personnel, who made their choices on ballots bearing Torricelli's name.
On another legal front, state Superior Court Judge Linda R. Feinberg was busy inside the Mercer County courthouse implementing the New Jersey Supreme Court's order that the 21 county clerks issue a new set of ballots, and get them to voters and back by the Nov. 5 election.
The state Supreme Court put Feinberg and Attorney General David Samson in charge of carrying out the order.
"I am not going to interrupt this process," Feinberg told lawyers representing the Democratic Party and Forrester during a hearing Thursday. "This has to happen quickly, expeditiously. There is no time for delay."
Feinberg ordered the New Jersey Democratic Party to have $800,000 deposited by noon today in a trust account set up by the court to pay for the ballot changes.
Feinberg, a Republican appointed to the bench by Democratic former Gov. Jim Florio, said she intends to move forward with the process of issuing new ballots unless she hears otherwise from the U.S. Supreme Court. She told the Attorney General's Office and lawyers representing county clerks and the candidates that she will remain available 24 hours a day to make sure the court's orders are carried out.
But GOP officials remained optimistic that a swift decision in their favor from the U.S. Supreme Court will stop new ballots from reaching voters.
In their emergency petition to the high court, New Jersey Republicans asked the justices to block the flow of ballots with Lautenberg's name until the court decides to hear the case. Ultimately, Republicans want the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the state Supreme Court ruling.
The request was filed with Associate Justice David H. Souter, an appointee of former President George Bush. Souter handles appeals from the 3rd U.S. Circuit, which includes New Jersey.
Republicans expected a quick response from the court, perhaps as early as today, according to Alex Vogel, general counsel for the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee.
"I expect the court to act fairly expeditiously," Vogel said. "In 24 to 36 hours, I would expect to hear from the court considering the extreme time sensitivity."
In asking the nation's highest court to intervene, Republicans argued that the New Jersey top court's ruling violated the U.S. Constitution, which requires the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections to be set by state legislatures. They are also arguing that the ruling voided the rights of military personnel, and hundreds who already cast absentee ballots.
Republicans acknowledged that they did not know the number of voters who have already sent back their absentee ballots, though the state mailed out more than 1,600 absentee, military, and overseas ballots with Torricelli's name, according to the court filing.
In the letter asking Ashcroft to intervene, Republicans claim that New Jersey violated federal voting law for overseas military and citizens.
The U.S. Justice Department, which Ashcroft oversees, can file a civil rights lawsuit against New Jersey if it determines that the state violated the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.
In the letter to Ashcroft, Republicans cited two Florida cases brought by the U.S. Justice Department, including the now-famous litigation that grew out of the 2000 presidential election.
During that dispute, federal courts ruled that sending absentee ballots in time for military personnel to participate in the election trumped any conflicting state law or regulations surrounding absentee ballots.
In other federal cases, however, including one in New Jersey, the Justice Department simply ordered states to extend the deadline for accepting absentee ballots beyond Election Day.
Ashcroft spokesman Jorge Martinez said the attorney general received the letter, but no decision was reached by the close of business Thursday.
IS this a Constitutional issue?
I mean, I realize it is patently ridiculous to throw out an election law solely on the basis of judicial fiat, but what is the jurisdiction of the Federal government over that of the state of New Jersey?
I'm asking this because I am without a clue as to what the basis might be, and seek a wise one to guide me.
If nothing else, at least it cost the democrats close to a million dollars...
I don't know about anyone else but I cannot think of a more dangerous precedent. If we give the power of a court to appoint the candidates who themselves appoint the court we are asking for huge problems. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey why go with Rudy when you could go with George Washington and replace him the day before the election with Forrester. So that a vote for Washington is a vote for Forrester. these are the new rules right? Stay well - stay safe - stay armed - Yorktown
PLEASE HELP ME TAKE BACK THE SENATE!
There is another, non-Constitutional challenge available. By allowing the ballots to be printed and distributed less than 35 days before the election, the state is in violation of federal election laws designed to ensure that the ballots of military members stationed overseas are received in time to be counted.
Election laws are set by the state legislatures and not the courts for a very good reason. The legislators have the time to review the process to ensure they are setting a reasonable deadline enabling a smooth election that complies with federal law. By acting at the last minute, the NJ court has thrown the process into a chaotic shambles.
The cost will easily surpass a million. It's a fact that you pay through the nose if you need something done in a hurry.
The ultimate justice will be served if the new ballots are all printed, then the SCOTUS says the original ones must be used. At least then the Democrats will have payed a dear price for their chicanery.
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.