GOP asks Supreme Court to decide NJ ballot issue
Posted on 10/04/2002 2:33:20 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
GOP asks Supreme Court to decide NJ ballot issue
Just like 2000, justices could affect course of national politics
10/04/2002
WASHINGTON - Once again, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have the future of national politics in their hands.
Rather than the presidency, control of the U.S. Senate could wind up on the high court docket this time.
Republicans on Thursday asked the justices to intervene in a New Jersey ballot dispute, saying the state Supreme Court acted illegally when it allowed a last-minute replacement candidate for Sen. Robert Torricelli.
Mr. Torricelli bowed out of the race Monday amid ethics problems, and Democrats moved quickly to place former Sen. Frank Lautenberg on the ballot.
|
Mr. Lautenberg's late entry is considered a threat to Republican nominee Douglas Forrester, who had led Mr. Torricelli in the polls before he dropped out the race.
Legal analysts said they expect the U.S. Supreme Court to stay out of the fray but added that this same group decided the 2000 presidential race with a ruling that will be debated for as long as elections are held.
"There is absolutely no federal question involved, and there's absolutely no reason for the Supreme Court to take this case," said Frank Askin, professor at Rutgers University/Newark law school. "But I said the same thing about Bush vs. Gore, so what do I know?"
But there are key differences, analysts said.
That 2000 case revolved around disputed Florida votes that affected a national office, the presidency; the New Jersey battle affects only the residents of the state and involves access to the ballot before Election Day.
Yet both the legal case and the political race could well have national impact: control of the Senate, which now belongs to Democrats by one seat.
When Mr. Torricelli ended his campaign, he said he didn't want his potential loss to tip the balance of the Senate.
AP Former Sen. Frank Lautenberg (right) met with Democrats at the Capitol on Thursday, including Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (left) and Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada. |
While state law prohibits ballot changes this close to an election, Democrats went to court to substitute the name of Mr. Lautenberg, arguing that New Jersey voters deserve a choice for their senator.
They won Wednesday, bringing cheers from Democrats nationwide.
"The New Jersey State Supreme Court wants to ensure that the voters there have a choice, and they will certainly have a great choice," said Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., whose title may be hanging in the balance.
Republicans denounced the decision as a mockery of election laws.
"You know, we don't think they should try to change the rules of the game at the end of the game," said Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., eager to regain his majority status. "We don't think that they should violate the law in the state."
So the Republican Party has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to again get involved in a high-profile political case.
It was less than two years ago that the justices, in a 5-4 ruling with notably angry dissents, halted recounts in the state of Florida, effectively awarding the presidency to George W. Bush.
Legal analysts doubted the court would dip its toe back into political waters.
"The odds are no," said Jan Baran, a Washington attorney who specializes in election law. "The court takes about 70 to 80 cases a year out of 7,000. But what we learned from our Florida experience is that election cases can beat the odds."
In asking the federal Supreme Court to step in, Republicans argued that the state ruling is unfair to overseas voters who are starting to receive absentee ballots. GOP lawyers also warned of election-year shenanigans across the country should the New Jersey court's ruling stand.
"Political parties will be encouraged to withdraw losing candidates on the eve of election, replacing them with candidates who have not gone through the rigors of the nominating process in hopes of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat," said the filing.
Democrats noted that former Gov. Christie Whitman, a Republican, appointed six of the seven New Jersey justices who made the ruling.
But Ms. Whitman, now director of the Environmental Protection Agency, didn't give the court's handiwork a strong review.
"This shows that even very bright people can make serious mistakes," she said. "This really fuels the cynicism people have about our electoral system, and it's a shame."
Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the College of William & Mary, cited a GOP argument that the New Jersey Supreme Court usurped the Legislature's right to set elections, but doubted a federal court would resolve that dispute.
Analysts said the New Jersey Supreme Court is entitled to be the final arbiter of New Jersey law, and they doubted the U.S. Supreme Court would take up the matter - if only because of the criticism it took two years ago.
"With all the heat they took over Bush vs. Gore, I'm skeptical they would do it again," said Mr. Askin, the Rutgers law professor. "But it's certainly possible."
E-mail djackson@dallasnews.com
This case will be taken up. Only 4 judges need to vote YEA. Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and O'Connor, who was the most obviously miffed during Bush v Gore, will vote in the affimative.
This position, held by Leftists of all stripes, essentially voids the Constitution. Those who take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies must consider Leftists their enemies in all cases.
But Ms. Whitman, now director of the Environmental Protection Agency, didn't give the court's handiwork a strong review.
"This shows that even very bright people can make serious mistakes," she said.
Or, since the NJ Supreme Court is made up of four Democrats, two Republicans, and one independent, perhaps this shows that Christine Todd Whitman is not a very bright person.
It is a pretty Shallow and Facile analysis to yell Bush v. Gore, and not realise that this goes to the bery eart of the Concurrance, which had 3 signers, and this is a far more egregious case. In FLA, there was wiggle room, because the law ALLOWED for manual recounts. The law does not allow the replacement at this late date.
Oh please. It's quite obvious the Demilibs knew this was where they were going to lose their on seat majority lead in the Senate. This most certainly is a national level concern and it stinks from McGreedy all the way up to The Midget.
There was a report on FNC that Ashcroft had asked the NJSC to answer why they disregarded the federal statues regarding military ballots (the 35 day rule). I didn't see the report about the SCOTUS asking the Dems to respond.
Agreed! Let others bring the challenge, Forrester's best strategy is to be the happy warrior. "You wanna change the rules on me? Fine! I'll beat you anyway. Torrecelli last week, Lautenberg this week, and if you send out another guy next week, I'll beat him too. It just goes to show: one Republican is worth two Democrats."
"There is absolutely no federal question involved, and there's absolutely no reason for the Supreme Court to take this case," said Frank Askin, professor at Rutgers University/Newark law school. "But I said the same thing about Bush vs. Gore, so what do I know?"
Well, you certainly don't know the rule of law. It's yahoos like you, on their self-proclaimed pedestals that think whim-of-the-day opinion rules.
You know what? I've been wondering what the DIMocRATS would say/do if someone in the GOP decided "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" myself. I would imagine that they would scream their heads off and not even consider how hypocritical that would be. The DIMocRATic Party is the party of the Ethically Challenged.
In any case, I hope that SCOTUS does the right thing and pitches this in the dumper.
....crosses fingers. 
I understood that.
You're right. This is another attempt to disenfranchise military voters, who vote predominately GOP.
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.
