[mlo]

Why wouldn't equal protection be a federal issue? People have a right to vote. NJ voters duly elected state reps who passed an election rule. By national Dems and state judges refusing to abide by the rule, doesn't that deny NJ voters a meaningful vote? Doesn't that deny them a right to make their own rules and have them adhered to by politicians? Shouldn't voters be protected, and by the SCOTUS since they're the only people left who can do it?

The decision affects all NJ voters equally. What's the equal protection issue?

[Political Junkie Too]

The equal protection is that the election is for a seat at a national office, the Senate, which affects everyone. If New Jersey can change the rules to influence the outcome, then that's not fair to the voters in Minnisota who can't do the same. It also has to do with the fact that Republicans in California, hoping for a change in majority in the Senate can't get it because New Jersey played loose with the rules.

The states can set their own deadlines, but all states operate under the assumption that each state won't mess with the rules once their legislatures write them. That is the equal protection.

-PJ

[rintense]

What's the equal protection issue?

This is only one part, but a very important part. Torch was chosen in a primary to be the Dem candidate. The voters did not choose Lautenberg. It was the Democratic party that chose Lautenberg, NOT the people. Therefore, the voters have not had equal protection. In fact, the voters have been usurped by a special interest group.