What year was that? I certainly don't recall Forrester asking for SCOTUS intervention, but vaguely recall the matter of Lautenberg replacing Toricelli at a late date being approved by the 'rat controlled NJ Supreme Court.
BTW, when SCOTUS denies certiorari from a another court, they have a policy of not commenting on why they denied it. So my gut feeling is that you may not have that history quite accurately.
I can't see the legal logic in distinguishing Bush v. Gore - reviewable by SCOTUS from a state supreme court - from the Forrester-Lautenberg matter, simply because one is a state contest for presidential electors and the other is a state contest for a US Senate seat.
CNN October 8, 2002: Supreme Court won't intervene in N.J. case
-PJ
The Democrats argued to the NJ Supreme Court that Torricelli, who was losing badly in the polls due to corruption and ethics charges, must be replaced in the name of "giving voters a competitive election." Never mind that the campaign had been going on for months and was competitive, but that Torricelli was losing the competition. To Democrats, it's only "competitive" if the Democrat is winning.
The NJ Supreme Court agreed, and orderd Torricelli to be replaced. Republicans had argued that it was too late (already past the statute deadline, changing the rules of the election in progress), and that absentee ballots had already been mailed out overseas. The Court said that new absentee ballots can be color-coded to indicate that they are changed, and then mailed out to be faxed back. Critics argued that faxing it back loses the color coding, but logical reasoning played no part in this decision to save the Senate seat for Democrats.
Simultaneous to arguing that Torricelli must be replaced in New Jersey in the name of competitive elections, Democrats were arguing in Hawaii that the deceased House Representative Patsy Mink must be KEPT on the ballot in the name of a competitive election, because replacing her with an unknown would not be fair to voters. Democrats argued that a vote for Mink should be counted as a vote for her replacement. As to be expected, Hawaii courts agreed with Democrats and kept Mink's name on the ballot, and her replacement went on to win the House seat.
This is the same argument that Democrats made in Missouri in 2000 when Democrat Senate candidate Mel Carnahan died in a plane crash a few weeks before the election. The Missouri governor said that it was too late to remove Carnahan's name from the ballot, but if he won the election the governor would appoint his wife to the seat in his place. Republican John Ashcroft should have argued that a dead candidate is not a valid candidate, and that any votes for Carnahan were to be tossed as invalid votes and not counted as a draft pick to be named later. Ashcroft didn't make the argument, and he lost the election. The postscript to this story is that Jean Carnahan ungraciously voted NO to Ashcroft's appointment as Attorney General under George W. Bush.
All these stories show how the Democrats fight everything, whether on solid legal ground or not, and Republicans cower from EVERY political fight (except Bush v Gore), when faced with the same.
-PJ