FOX News..GOP Ready Tomorrow With New Jersey Election Lawsuit

FOX News ^ | September 30, 2002 | Linda Vester

[tip of the sword]

FOX just reported that the paperwork will be ready to go on the New Jersey funny business and rigging elections.

Depending of course if the Torch goes throught with the resignation from the campaign or U.S. Senate.

[swheats]

Dead weight is dead weight, no matter how you slice it. The wheels of justice grinds slowly...

[GraniteStateConservative]

Right now the senate is 50-49-1 (Jeffords makes it 51-49). Without Torch, it's 49-49-1 (or 50-49). We still are in the minority, but by one less vote.

The only real effect here is with the Homeland Security Dept bill and other examples where the Democrats lose someone like Miller and have to pick up Chafee. Now, the Democraps would have to find another Republican to keep the GOP version from passing.

This is all nonsense anyway. Torch isn't resigning. They just want to replace his name on the ballot.

[colorado tanker]

"This will soon become a national public relations disaster for the greedy Democrats who simply don't want to let the public have their fair vote." Yep. Hard to tell what's more stupid, the Torch move or opposition to Bush and Blair policy on Iraq.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Toricelliconcello

(Italian for "Toricelli-gate")

[hsmomx3]

I think so. The events of the last week have been crazy. The Torch thing, the two dimwits who are in Iraq more or less saying that Bush is lying, Daschle throwing hissyfits......and so on.

I still say this will do wonders for the dems nationwide.

[GretchenEE]

"Mr. T is not going to win, so how are we going to retain his seat?"

That's my read.

Those who live in the slime have held their breath till they knew which way the wind was blowing in Torricelli's hustings. Nothing being done is without extreme calculation here. I don't know how much backbone the NJ voters have, but they have the duty to rise up and howl over these manipulations, for that is clearly what they are. If the voters make an outcry at being hog-tied, perhaps someone in a court somewhere will pay attention to a GOP challenge to this non-sense.

[Jack Black]

If the ballot box becomes meaningless, as the Democrats increasingly seem to be willing to make it, that is an ominous trend for the USA. We have the following:

1. Gore blatent attempt to steal election in Florida.
2. Carnahan appointment after MO certify dead candidate.
3. D's running Mink even though she is dead to modle #2
4. Torticelli debacle.
5. Jim Jeffords turns a Republican Senate dem by himself

This is a pretty bad list, and it seems to be accelerating in both speed and severity. The Torch thing is even more blatent than the Carnahan appointment.

What's next? The last time this happened, that voters wills were thwarted by machinations we had a civil war on.

[Spyder]

Not to mention the fiasco in Hawaii, where some are saying that Rep. Mink (D of course) was kept on life support long enough so that her name couldn't be removed from the ballot. She was pronounced dead just 2 days after the deadline had passed.

Not only that, but the Dim candidate for governor (currently down about 9 points) can now run on a "Patsy would have wanted you to vote for me" platform.

[GraniteStateConservative]

The states are allowed to control the manner of the elections.

[The Old Hoosier]

I didn't think Bradley would do it. But Pallone or Andrews could.

[Straight Vermonter]

Here is the cite mentioned by Writmeister.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOSTER, GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA, et al. v. LOVE et al.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

---

No. 96—670. Argued October 6, 1997–Decided December 2, 1997.

---

The Elections Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, §4, cl. 1, invests the States with responsibility for the mechanics of congressional elections, see Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730, but grants Congress “the power to override state regulations” by establishing uniform rules for federal elections, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 832—833. One such congressional rule sets the date of the biennial election for the offices of United States Senator, 2 U.S.C. § 1 and Representative, §7, and mandates holding all congressional and presidential elections on a single November day, 2 U.S.C. § 1 7; 3 U.S.C. § 1. Since 1978, Louisiana has held in October of a federal election year an “open primary” for congressional offices, in which all candidates, regardless of party, appear on the same ballot and all voters are entitled to vote. If a candidate for a given office receives a majority at the open primary, the candidate “is elected” and no further act is done on federal election day to fill that office. Since this system went into effect, over 80% of the State’s contested congressional elections have ended as a matter of law with the open primary. Respondents, Louisiana voters, challenged this primary as a violation of federal law. Finding no conflict between the state and federal statutes, the District Court granted summary judgment to petitioners, the State’s Governor and secretary of state. The Fifth Circuit reversed.

Held: Louisiana’s statute conflicts with federal law to the extent that it is applied to select a congressional candidate in October. Pp. 3—7.

    (a) The issue here is a narrow one turning entirely on the meaning of the state and federal statutes. There is no colorable argument that §7 goes beyond the ample limits of the Elections Clause’s grant of authority to Congress. In speaking of “the election” of a Senator or Representative, the federal statutes plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make the final selection of an officeholder; and by establishing “the day” on which these actions must take place, the statutes simply regulate the time of the election, a matter on which the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the final say. Pp. 3—4.

    (b) A contested selection of candidates for a congressional office that is concluded as a matter of law before the federal election day, with no act in law or in fact to take place on the date chosen by Congress, clearly violates §7. Louisiana’s claim that its system concerns only the manner, not the time, of an election is at odds with the State’s statute, which addresses timing quite as obviously as §7 does. A federal election takes place in Lousiana before federal election day whenever a candidate gets a majority in the open primary. Pp. 4—6.

    (c) This Court’s judgment is buttressed by the fact that Louisiana’s open primary has tended to foster both evils identified by Congress as reasons for passing the federal statute: the distortion of the voting process when the results of an early federal election in one State can influence later voting in other States, and the burden on citizens forced to turn out on two different election days to make final selections of federal officers in presidential election years. Pp. 6—7. 90 F.3d 1026, affirmed.

    Souter, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I, II, and IV, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, O’Connor, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined.

[Jack Black]

They control the state SC. It's one of the most liberal in the country.

The state SC doesn't matter much. The SCOTUS is the body which has say in Federal elections, as Gore v. Bush showed. That and the leglislature itself which seats members and is the final judge of elections. How do you vote to not recognize an election in a 50/50 split. It's an ugly situation.

[Humidston]

..his conference will appoint a person to run.

And who is the Torch - god??

Unless a candidate filed PRIOR TO THE CUTOFF DATE they have no standing to run. (But of course Dems never follow rules, do they?)

[Salvation]

BTTT for the latest news on FreeRepublic!!!!!!

[MattinNJ]

I am a lawyer in New Jersey. While I am not up to speed on election law, I do know that the New Jersey Supreme Court makes the Florida Supreme Court look conservative. IMHO, this will wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

[LibWhacker]

That's what I thought when I first read it. But it can't be; otherwise, in states with rat governors, Senate rats in tight races would always step down just before an election, and people in the state would never get to vote.

[Salvation]

FR must be swamped with FReepers on this subject...Had a hard time getting online.

The DNC and the RNC too. Took a long time to get on line

[writmeister]

No, the governor cannot prevent the November general election. The November election is mandated by federal law and the United States Constitution, and any attempt to use a state statute to void that election would be unconstitutional. Look at Foster v. Love, 532 US 67, 118 SCt 464, 139 LEd2d 369 (1997).

[rintense]

Not really. Bill Clinton and Terry McAwful were in consort with Torch in all of this. If anything, it will look like democratic scheming.

[Recovering_Democrat]

sorry, jd. I'm not a legal eagle. In English, please? :)