FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Posted on 10/05/2002 7:27:36 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
WASHINGTON -- New Jersey Democrats asked the Supreme Court yesterday to stay out of a state election fight that could determine which party controls the U.S. Senate, accusing Republicans of trying to engineer an easy victory for their candidate.
Republicans have offered no good reason that the high court should play referee in the fight over whether the Democrats may replace Sen. Bob Torricelli on next month's ballot, lawyers for the state Democratic Party argued in a court filing.
There was no immediate answer from the high court.
Torricelli abruptly ended his re-election bid earlier in the week, saying he wanted to spare his party a possible loss of its one-seat hold on the Senate. Democrats quickly chose former Sen. Frank Lautenberg to fill in, and the Republicans went to court.
GOP candidate Douglas Forrester's complaint "appears to be that he would prefer to compete with the withdrawn candidate -- hence, not to compete at all,'' the Democrats wrote. "This is not the basis for a federal constitutional claim.''
Torricelli once seemed a shoo-in for re-election, but he sank in the polls following a Senate rebuke last summer after allegations of unethical conduct. Forrester had been successful in making Torricelli's conduct the central issue in the campaign.
The Republicans appealed to the high court Thursday in a move reminiscent of the conclusion of the presidential election battle in Florida two years ago. The GOP wants the court, dominated by Republican appointees, to block a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that would allow the candidate switch.
As in the 2000 election fight, Republicans are contesting a ruling from a majority-Democrat state court.
The Supreme Court surprised both sides by jumping into the fight two years ago, ending ballot recounts in Florida by a bitter 5-4 vote. Democrat Al Gore had sought the recounts in hopes of erasing George W. Bush's tiny lead.
At issue this time is whether state law and the Constitution allow the candidate swap so close to the Nov. 5 election. Republicans contend the switch is illegal and would unconstitutionally disenfranchise absentee voters and New Jersey voters living overseas, including military personnel. Hundreds of those ballots are already printed.
New Jersey law bars replacement of candidates less than 48 days before an election, the GOP said.
If the state ruling stands, "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 nomination process in hopes of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat,'' Republicans argued to the high court Thursday.
There is plenty of time to reprint ballots, Democrats assured the Supreme Court.
"All voters will be given a ballot and an opportunity to cast that ballot, without any possibility of disenfranchisement or dilution,'' the party said.
Forrester will remain on the ballot no matter what, so it is really Lautenberg and Democratic voters who stand to lose if the New Jersey ruling is overturned, Democrats countered.
"It may be that Forrester believes he will be politically hurt by the New Jersey Supreme Court's judgment and is simply unwilling to say so,'' Democrats wrote.
In New Jersey, Republicans filed a separate challenge in federal court in Trenton on behalf of two people the party contends could lose their votes.
"I already voted. I don't want my ballot nullified,'' said Maj. Kevin Reilly, a military doctor from New Jersey who said he voted by mail from his post in Hawaii.
BUMP
I've been checking the TV channels myself to see if anything is happening.
Hopefully someone will post a thread if something starts happening.
I seem to recall two SCOTUS votes, one 7 to 2 and the other 5 to 4 but I don't recall specifically what the two votes were about. One thing I'm sure of today, the DemoCraps are framing the issue, only remembering the 5-4 vote (bitter? to whom?).
We need legal fees and the guts to move forward. But, it should be very easy to demonstrate how crooked the Jersey court is and how sleazy are the dems.
We haven't heard any word on the subject at all this morning, and to my knowledge no one has seen the justices enter the building yet. My guess is the prelimary debate between the justices is being held elsewhere, or they got a huge teleconference going on.
The longer we don't hear about, the longer it means they are debating amongst themselves whether or not to take it. The longer it takes, the better chance there is that this situation will go in favor in of the Pubs. Now, granted, that's just a gut instinct. Take it for what's it's worth. I'm not polished in the world of political thinking or predicting.
Believe me, I will be watching and listening just like everyone else.
Problem is, this theme has already been picked up by the Dem media 'hos and will resonate with the sheeple. My bet, Forrester loses.
More liberal lies. This should have carried an barf alert.
(BTW, it's amusing that her name means "grumbling" or "complaint" in Scottish Gaelic. Fits well. Then translate "Anne" to "An" and it becomes "The Grumble", which fits even better! )
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.