REWRITING THE NEW JERSEY BALLOT - Some Preliminary Issue Spotting [legal Analysis]

FindLaw ^ | 10-4-2002 | Amar

[ErnBatavia]

Then again, after Bush v. Gore, it's hard to be shocked by anything the Court might do or not do.

This last sentence gives away more than a hint of bias, doesn't it......just another dolt sucked in by the Demoncrat mantra. Another clueless, blinders-wearing "maroon".

[Amerigomag]

The issue involved in the petition to the NJSC is so simple I am continually amazed that 750 word essays of explanation can result day after day.

[Unknown Freeper]

ping

[Notwithstanding]

interesting ping

[MHGinTN]

Thanks for posting this! And ERN, re-read the essay (or read the entire thing) and rewrite your post. If you were submitting for a class, your 180 degree mistaken reading would garner an 'F' grade.

[Notwithstanding]

The authors are honest enough to both hint at their bias (pro-Gore) and to allow that NJSC might have gotten it wrong and SCOTUS could be justified in reversing.

[Mo1]

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 Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[BJungNan]

If there is genuinely a public interest in new ballots, why shouldn't the public pay?

Very interesting point.

[BJungNan]

If there is genuinely a public interest in new ballots, why shouldn't the public pay?

Very interesting point.

[inquest]

I don't think it necessarily indicates bias. Although I think Gore was acting like a skunk the whole time during the post-election mess, I can't help but think that Bush vs. Gore was a seriously flawed decision. It was purely within the state's prerogative to decide whether or not to continue counting. It doesn't seem to me like SCOTUS had much of a leg to stand on in that one.

[Zon]

Democrat officials said "Torricelli is going to lose to Forester and in order to have any chance of maintaining that Senate seat we have to get a more ethical/trustworthy Democrat on the New Jersey Ballot. ...Rules/laws -- what rules? ...We make the rules."

That's what the seven New Jersey Supreme Court judges unanimously approved.

Honesty outlives the lie. It always has and always will. There's so many lies that have piled up over the last hundred-fifty years that when they soon coming crashing down, the American political experiment and it's current crop of politicians and bureaucrats that so thoroughly continued the decline into corruption are going to get the brunt of the blame and ostracism. They'll be out in the cold with virtually every business refusing to sell them any of their goods and services. Those few business that do will witness themselves losing their non-political, non-bureaucrat honest customers.

[inquest]

Article I says that "state legislatures" shall prescribe the time, place and manner of U.S. Senate elections, just as Article II says that "state legislatures" shall prescribe the "manner" for appointing Presidential electors.

I brought this up on another thread, but I think I came in too late after everyone moved on. If "only state legislatures" can provide the manner of election, then how is it that the manner can vary from county to county, and even from town to town?

[Always Right]

Along with many other law professors, we made all sorts of mistaken predictions in the run-up to Bush v. Gore.

I was about 9-0 in predicting the outcome of the various Bush v. Gore cases. The law was very clear in that case and it is almost as clear in this case. If the US Supremes decide to make a ruling it will go against the NJ Supreme Court, probably in a 7-2 ruling. The only chance this ruling has of standing is if the US Supremes refuse to hear it.

[Notwithstanding]

It seems there is something to the notion that the FEDERAL bench can determine if the CONSTITUTIONAL(US) requirements (that the state LEGISLATURE rather than the state Court sets the rules for election of Senators AND that the Legislature determines if those rules are followed and what to do if something unexpected comes up) have been followed.

As the article points out:

"But it's worth noting that that the same federal issue that initially caught the Court's eye in Bush v. Gore – namely, do state courts violate the Federal Constitution when they misinterpret state statutes in such a way as to deprive state legislatures of the power conferred on them in the Constitution?–is precisely what is being pressed by the Republican lawyers in DC right now.

"Article I says that "state legislatures" shall prescribe the time, place and manner of U.S. Senate elections, just as Article II says that "state legislatures" shall prescribe the "manner" for appointing Presidential electors. If the Court thought the Florida judiciary was violating Article II in 2000 – at least 3, and perhaps as many as 5 Justices so believed – we wouldn't be shocked if the Court thought that Wednesday's ruling by the New Jersey court violates Article I.

[Always Right]

It was purely within the state's prerogative to decide whether or not to continue counting. It doesn't seem to me like SCOTUS had much of a leg to stand on in that one.

There were violations of both the Constitution and Federal Law in Gore vs. Bush. At least in Presidential Elections the Federal Law clearly forbids changing rules after the fact and the Constitution grants the power to the State Legislature to determine the manner of the election. The Equal Protection ruling wasn't as solid, but to say that states can ignore the US Constutition and Federal Law is a bit much. There are Constitutional issues and Federal Law issues that are very much under the authority of the US Supreme Court to rule on.

[Weirdad]

I would also like to hear some commentary on 14th amendment arguments. It seems that many people are not going to receive equal protection of the law because this decision to permit a change in horses caused them to have their candidate pummeled by the Democrat machine for months already, while they will have only 30 days to oppose the substituted candidate.

And what of the campaign finance reform changes? Many groups that previously could run issue ads against the candidates are prohibited this close to the election from running issue ads against Lautenberg, a potential serious disadvantage to be heard.

This has to be made into a Federal case, and there have been a number of potential Federal arguments advanced, but I have heard no use of the 14th amendment. What do the lawyers think?

[CyberAnt]

And ... am I reading this right - this guy is teaching people to become lawyers??

If so, he's not instructing them on the LAW. He's instructing them on HIS OPINION of the law. Scary!!

[HiTech RedNeck]

It is true, of course, that the timeline apparently set up by the New Jersey statute is itself somewhat arbitrary. What is the real difference 51 days and 35 days, so long as both periods allow new ballots to physically be prepared?

The 51 day rule was made to comply with Federal law concerning military ballots. Before that, it was shorter.

[stimulate]

I hope your assessment is correct,but I heard one legal analyst report that the NJ Supreme Court decision would stand.He was formally a legal Republican Party consultant.He seeemed to have great knowledge of the history of the NJSC in their controversial decisions since 1906.According to this analyist, it has happened several times before where NJ State election law has been set aside and has never been reversed.