[Congressman Billybob]

To the contrary, the Senate has the power to decide that Forrester "won" the election, even if New Jersey reports that Lautenberg got more votes. See the example in my earlier post where the House did that with respect to an Indiana House seat. The powers of the House and Senate over the seating of their respective members are parallel, and nearly absolute.

Billybob

[Cyber Liberty]

"...the Senate has the power to decide that Forrester "won" the election..."

I'm taking bets that this will never happen. Never. What would be an appropriate wager?

[hobbes1]

Thank you again.

[inquest]

It doesn't look like that situation from Indiana was analogous. In that earlier case, there was simply a difference of understanding as to who got more votes. If Lautenberg wins, and by a wide enough margin to make it clear that he got the most votes, then I don't see how the Senate can constitutionally seat Forrester (what they can actually get away with is another matter).

The power to be judge of elections is exactly analogous to the power of judges to be judges of the law - that is, the power to judge, based on established rules, not the power to make up new rules. Yes, just as judges get away with making up the law as they go (as SCONJ made clear to us recently), it may very well be that the Senate can do the same. On the other hand, I think there's precedent to suggest that the courts can still take notice if either house of Congress goes beyond its bounds in that regard.