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
heh heh. I knew someone was bound to bring that up. What do you think, Saber? Will SCOTUS take this on? 
Another example of subtle media bias.
The good professor should take another look at the law of the land. The Constitution clearly states that, for elections of federal offices, the state legislatures (not the judiciary) make the rules.
If the "Torch" quits after the legislatively-determined deadline, for a reason other than that specified, it is tantamount to him conceding the election. His opponent wins.
No, this proves for all the world that you're dumb as a post, Chrissy!
You know absolutely nothing. You would think a Law Professor would have a copy of the US Constution handy so he could see this is a federal question. The US Constution empowers the State Legislature with the right to make the rules governing the election. Until the Legislature gives that power to the NJ Court, the NJ Court has no power to change this rules on some whim. And the last time I checked, how the US Constitution is intrepreted (or ignored in the case) is a federal issue.
This is not a "nationalizable" issue.
Nobody in California is going to change their vote because of what the NJ Supreme Court did. I wish they would but they won't. Same goes for the US Supreme Court. It can affect the NJ race but it won't affect anything else.
If the Supremes reverse then of course the media will spin and spin but the net result will be zippo.
It goes as follows:
Article I, section 4 reads:
"The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature (not courts) thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."
You being a professor and have NO CLUE that the NJSC just ignored law with no rhyme or reason to their decision befuddles me as well as other pro-Contitutionalists.
It is obvious that the DNC is trying to circumvent their predicted loss to Forrester by pulling him and putting a name that NJ voters would recognize in hopes to win the seat. The NJSC did not even focus on Torricelli's reason for leaving the election besides the fact that he would lose. This is not a catastrophic reason mandating a replacement. Any High School grad could see that but you can't?
You are either a political hack blatantly ignoring law or ignorant. I pity the students in your classes. You are teaching them how to be stellar DNC lawyers it sounds.
Sincerely, < name removed >
The SCNJ has just announced new rules for betting on all horse races. It's now permissible to change one's bet on a given horse all the way up to one length from the finish line.
THIS HAS BEEN DONE IN FAIRNESS, TO INSURE THAT ALL BETTORS CAN HAVE A CHOICE. AFTER ALL, BETTING ON A LOSING HORSE IN NO CHOICE AT ALL.
Great post meeky.
That would graphically show the folly of this RAT sham.
Well put. That's what it will take for the sheeple to undertand what happened in NJ this week.
Thanks.
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.
