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GOP candidate Douglas Forrester's complaint "appears to be that he would prefer to compete with the withdrawn candidate -- hence, not to compete at all,'' the Democrats wrote.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.
The 7-2 vote ruled that the manual Florida vote recounts in a small subset of the counties were unconstitutional, reversing the Florida Supreme Court. The 5-4 vote was the ruling that any recount (presumably the entire state) had to be done by midnight, which was impossible and therefore ended the election.
The US Supreme Court ruled three times in the Election fiasco of 2000:
Regarding the inability of any authority to change the rules of a Federal election after the process started (in Floriduh's case, changing the counting and reporting rules in an Electoral College election), it was 9-0.
Regarding the failure to provide equal protection of the voters and their ballots, it was 7-2.
Regarding the complete lack of a Constitutional "remedy" for the Sore Loserman campaign, it was 5-4.
The last one is the one the Dems like to latch onto, but the other two are the key ones, IMHO.
Let's hope that this maddening delay is because they are writing as we speak...and that it is taking longer than usual because they are writing the decision so it is clear that this can NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.
What to do, where to start again? At the moment, I got nothing, except to look upon the situation in almost total awe, that stupidity reigns supreme. I expect we shall have to wait for the almost total self-destruction of the "liberal"-left and try to assemble some new people out of the scattered body parts.
Because you don't have a liberal brain in ya head????
I believe that this was the one that said that legislatures write the rules for elections, not the courts. And, as you say, this was unanimous. And I believe that it is relevant.
From scanning through the Rules of the SCOTUS, it appears that Souter can rule on this himself OR he "may" refer it to the whole court. If he does the latter and four Justices agree, they hear the case.
I serously doubt that. This move has sickened a lot of Democrats, plus Lautenberg said a number of unflattering things about being a Senator. It'll still be a race if the USSC doesn't rule against Lautenberg.
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2002/#forrester
Regards,
Allan J. Favish
http://www.allanfavish.com
You are right. The best thing for the Republicans to do is get this out of the courts and go to the people. Keep pointing out the slime tatics of the Democrats. It might not save New Jersey for Forrester, but it could have a big impact on Democrats in other states. Many regular bump along Democrats are very uncomfortable with the party tatics lately. Forget the arguments to the Supreme Court, go after the sleze factor that is obvious.
I'm hoping law is restored by the Supreme Court knocking down the NJ ruling. Forrester was totally put at a disadvantage by the NJSC.
At this point the issue is whether or not to issue a writ of certiorari - i.e. a decision to take up the case. Additionally they might be debating whether to issue a temporary injunction.
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.