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GOP candidate Douglas Forrester's complaint "appears to be that he would prefer to compete with the withdrawn candidate -- hence, not to compete at all,'' the Democrats wrote.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.
Funny. That's the same thing they said in Florida when people wanted to observed the ballot "counting" behind closed doors.
Someone needs to inform the Rats that we are a nation of laws, not bullies.
The primary objection voiced by the Leftists is the fact that Forrester is seeking to prevent the voters a choice. We are all aware of the fact that the people's choice wasn't Lautenberg. The Leftists made him their choice. Other candidates from other parties remain on the ballot.
Currently America's major concern is terrorism ie Saddam. Recall the Gulf War and Lautenbergs firewall stand against it, what do the people want today? What were his spending/tax records and how would those attitudes affect our nation today? How many democrats favor lower taxes if it affects them?
How many people, regardless of party, have a true desire to see the law upheld?
Has he said anything about not resigning his seat before his full term is over?
Not that I've heard. Seems like a natural question for the press to be asking. All the commentators I've heard expect him to resign after a "decent interval" to let McGreasy appoint a new Senator.
Two threads you might want to see:
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.
AND
California: Don't Let N.J. Democrats Break Election Law (Other States Join NJ Suit)
Gosh-a-roony, isn't that exactly what the *Democrats* are trying to do via the bait-and-switch? Toricelli even admits it in the same article:
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,
Fire Democrats, Hire Republicans !!
GWB Is The Man !!
Snuff Saddam, NOW !!
Death To all Tyrant's !!
The Second Amendment...
America's Original Homeland Security !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
Molon Labe !!
How about this reason. The NJSC violated has violated Article 1, Section 4 by usurping the constitional authority of the NJ State Legislature. I quote:
Art 1, Sect 4: The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.
Politically I hope the repubs. do not go to the Surpremes, morally, however, they should, once again the dems, put the republicns in a tight spot. You know the liberal press will not scream rant and rave at the NJ Mob. but will scream, rant, and rave if the republicans go to the court, that can change the minds of those on the fence come election time.
lautenberg at 78 is not likely to want to spend 6 years in the senate.
Why is the election over? Aren't there still five people in the race?
Justice Souter could issue an injunction:
"A preliminary injunction is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates either (1) a probability of success on the merits and a possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipping sharply in his favor. "
Souter needs to check what the other justices think before he does this. Either way, I'd expect it to get in front of the court on appeal.
Souter doesn't "need to", if "need to" means "must" or "shall". From the Rules of the USSC:
Rule 22.5. A Justice to whom an application for a stay or for bail is submitted may refer it to the Court for determination.
Because of the nature of the case, Souter "should" but that's a lot different from "must". Frankly, I don't trust Souter to do anything right.
You are correct.
Souter personally wants to give the Demos a win, even if the 'stare decisis' of Bush v. Gore says otherwise.
He "needs to" (should) consult with the others as a courtesy. The other justices could give him no end of grief if he jumps out in front of this all by himself. And he'll need support if and when this is heard by the full court.
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.