N.J. DEMS TO HIGH COURT: BALLOT BATTLE IS NONE OF YOUR BIZ

New York Post ^ | 10/05/02 | DEBORAH ORIN

[kattracks]

October 5, 2002 -- WASHINGTON - New Jersey Democrats yesterday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay out of the squabble over whether ex-Sen. Frank Lautenberg should be allowed to replace Sen. Robert Torricelli on the ballot.

Unless the high court gets into the act, Lautenberg will be on the ballot against Republican Douglas Forrester, based on a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that the switcheroo was OK even though it was past the legal deadline. Republicans say it's unfair to let Democrats replace a candidate just because he was losing.

[Political Junkie Too]

The poll was probably put out to try to intimidate the Supreme Court into inaction by "justifying" that the people support this. It is hard to imagine a constituency so fickle that they blast the NJ Dems one day and flock to their illegitimate candidate the next day. The poll was probably a push-poll designed to inflate Lautenberg's numbers.

I believe that the purpose of this poll is to lay the groundwork for massive voter fraud on November 5. The Democrats sense the voter discontent and they need some cover if they are going to stuff the ballot boxes with votes for Lautenberg.

This poll gives them cover to prove that the public actually did support Lautenberg to the degree that the vote count on November 5 will show.

-PJ

[Aracelis]

they need some cover if they are going to stuff the ballot boxes with votes for Lautenberg.

The net result will be this: A protracted court battle (from either side), and the dems will still be in power at least until January.

[Political Junkie Too]

You know, you let one lawyer become president and suddenly every election is being contested in court.

-PJ

[Leisler]

Ever since the end of the Civil War, elections for federal office have been a matter of the Federal government. Both now, and in Florida, the Democrats have been argueing states rights. How odd.

[Maelstrom]

Constitution to NJ SC: "Ballot Battle is none of your Biz"

[BrookdalePark]

Here is the Democratic argument, from today's New York Times ("Another Day in Court"):

In an almost mocking tone, Angelo J. Genova, the Democratic Party's lawyer, suggested in the brief that the Republican candidate,Douglas R. Forrester, was angling to run unopposed.

Mr. Forrester "does not allege irreparable injury to his position as the Republican nominee for the office in question," Mr. Genova wrote. "Nor could he." Mr. Forrester "will remain on the revised ballot, and the voters inclined or decided to vote for him may still do so," Mr. Genova continued. "Applicant's complaint appears to be that he would prefer to compete with the withdrawn candidate — hence, to compete not at all."

In other words, the party is arguing that Mr. Forrester must be punished because his campaign was so successful, he defeated his opponent so thoroughly, that his opponent quit!

[elephantlips]

As I pointed out previously, what we have here is a version of the man who kills his parents and then asks the court for mercy because he's an orphan.