My second win in the US Supreme Court came in 1983, in a ruling that the election laws of ten states violated the Constitution by seeking to prevent John Anderson from running for President as an independent. Anderson ran in an election that was over three years before, in 1980. But the Court decided the case anyway because this is a "repetitious issue." It was sure to come up again, and therefore they kept the case and decided it.
Exactly the same logic applies here. There will be other requests -- there have already been two in Hawaii -- for state courts to change their election laws in the middle of an election. It would be very valuable for the Supreme Court to tell all who bring such cases, and all state supreme courts which receive such cases, that judges who attempt to rewrite their state's election laws are wrong.
A decision by the US SC states clearly that the NJ SC violated the US Constitution will be very valuable to American elections for the indefinite future. That is true regardless of who wins on the ballot in New Jersey, and regardless of whether the US SC needs to, can, or does order any specific remedy along with its Opinion.
Billybob
Of course you are right-- this will be valuable in the future. But why would they not find it important enough to stop THIS NJ TAMPERING in its tracks, realtime?
How is this different from letting a bank robber get away, then later stating that BANK ROBBERY is illegal and will be punished??
Good point.
There is however another equity involved--"sissor, paper, rock". In that game two players each hide their right hand and then simultaneously the two players reveal their right hands.In other words, viewed from the point of view of the political parties, the Democratic Party has seen that it has lost and, after the deadline for change, has switched from a losing strategy to a possibly winning one. It is patently unfair and, from Doug Forrester's perspective, an organized fraud against himself.A closed fist represents "rock,"The game is decided according to the rules:
a flat hand represents "paper," and
a v-for-victory finger configuration represents "sissors.""rock breaks sissiors"The Torricelli nomination should be viewed as "rock,"
"sissors cuts paper"
"paper covers rock"
The Forrester noimination should be viewed as "paper," and
The Loutenberg noimination should be viewed as "sissors" (at least old, rusty ones).
And it is on that basis that I can readily envision a civil suit against the Democratic Party, alledging that the money spent by the Forrester campaign was extracted on the basis of his being induced into a fraudulent contest. Even a suit for triple damages under RICO . . .
Had Torricelli not initially been the putative Democratic nominee, the Republican Party might perhaps have been able to nominate a "rock" who could have easily handled Lautenberg--but then, the switcheroo was done after the last minute . . .
If SCotUS is to decide the case after the election, it would seem that there should be a financial penalty exacted against the offenders sufficient to make any tempted to follow their example think twice. Otherwise, what's the point? If they think SCotUS will blink again . . .
If SCotUS finds against the Democrats I think they would at least have to award monetary damages to the Forrester campaign, and threaten to recognize future violations as a pattern under RICO. But then, I'm not a lawyer--I don't even play one on TV.
OK, there's something I'm not quite clear on. You brought up the John Anderson case being decided after the 1980 election. But in that instance, John Anderson actually lost the election. If Forrester wins, what standing would he still have to bring suit?