GOP lawyers warn of election-year shenanigans
Excerpt:
"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.
< snip >
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."
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy. 