GOP asks Supreme Court to decide NJ ballot issue - GOP lawyers warn of election-year shenanigans

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?"

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

"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."

You can see how subtly the Dallas News shows thier bias. The picture of Mr. Forrester show him scowling and almost mean looking. While the picture of Lautenburg and his cronies are all laughing it up and sort of makes you feel good

Oh, and don't forget this little gem thrown in for good measure:

"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."

Never ceases to amaze me how brazen and open the bias is in the name of objective journalism.

You'll love this. A taste of their own medicine? LOL!.....

Republican Congressional Candidate Anticipates
Democratic Support For Inclusion On Revised Ballot

Mark Otto, the Republican Congressional challenger to incumbent Democrat Robert Andrews in the 1st District, called upon Andrews and the Democratic Party today to assist him in giving the voters of the 1st District a real choice this November.

Otto, who is waging a write-in campaign, admittedly failed to muster the required number of votes to qualify for the General Election ballot in June's Primary. "Unfortunately, I did not garner enough votes to qualify to be legally entitled to be placed on the ballot, and so, in accordance with New Jersey state law, at least as I then understood it, I took the only other route available and launched a write-in campaign," said Otto. "Had I known the law was merely a guideline and not to be taken literally, I most certainly would have immediately pursued a different path to get my name on the ballot. However, I have now analyzed the Democratic Party's impassioned arguments as to the Torricelli-Lautenberg swap, and read the swift decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court, which held that voters must have a representative from each of the two major parties regardless of any arbitrary dates or deadlines.

"Based upon the foregoing, I call upon Representative Robert Andrews, the Camden County Democratic Party, and the Democratic State Committee to immediately, explicitly and without reservation, support my inclusion on the ballots which are now apparently to be reprinted, in order to truly offer the voters of the 1st District a real choice as to both the Senate and Congressional races," Otto said. Otto also noted that there should be absolutely no difficulty in accomplishing this amendment to the ballots, if it is in fact permitted to go forward pending further legal action.

Otto, who is a member of the Camden County Young Republicans, began his write-in campaign after learning the Republican Party had, through a minor legal technicality, not timely submitted a name to be placed on the ballot to challenge Andrews. Mark decided to launch a write-in campaign only three days before June's primary but fell 74 votes short of making the ballot. Attorney George Gallenthin missed by only two votes.

After consulting with officials of the County GOP organization, Otto's spirited attempts to file a challenge with the Courts were rebuffed. "The law is the law, they told me." said Otto. "I came to understand that we can not, and should not, try to evade it or change it simply because it would arguably benefit us politically at this moment. We cannot compromise our fundamental beliefs in the American system of law to which our nation owes its very existence." Says Otto, "I find it difficult to believe that while voters apparently deserve a choice in a Senatorial race, they would not enjoy the same privilege in the 1st District Congressional race. I trust that I can count upon the Democratic Party to be consistent with the arguments they made only yesterday before our Supreme Court," Otto said. "I look forward to receiving their expression of support."

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.