GOP asks Supreme Court to decide NJ ballot issue
Posted on 10/04/2002 2:33:20 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
GOP asks Supreme Court to decide NJ ballot issue
Just like 2000, justices could affect course of national politics
10/04/2002
WASHINGTON - Once again, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have the future of national politics in their hands.
Rather than the presidency, control of the U.S. Senate could wind up on the high court docket this time.
Republicans on Thursday asked the justices to intervene in a New Jersey ballot dispute, saying the state Supreme Court acted illegally when it allowed a last-minute replacement candidate for Sen. Robert Torricelli.
Mr. Torricelli bowed out of the race Monday amid ethics problems, and Democrats moved quickly to place former Sen. Frank Lautenberg on the ballot.
|
Mr. Lautenberg's late entry is considered a threat to Republican nominee Douglas Forrester, who had led Mr. Torricelli in the polls before he dropped out the race.
Legal analysts said they expect the U.S. Supreme Court to stay out of the fray but added that this same group decided the 2000 presidential race with a ruling that will be debated for as long as elections are held.
"There is absolutely no federal question involved, and there's absolutely no reason for the Supreme Court to take this case," said Frank Askin, professor at Rutgers University/Newark law school. "But I said the same thing about Bush vs. Gore, so what do I know?"
But there are key differences, analysts said.
That 2000 case revolved around disputed Florida votes that affected a national office, the presidency; the New Jersey battle affects only the residents of the state and involves access to the ballot before Election Day.
Yet both the legal case and the political race could well have national impact: control of the Senate, which now belongs to Democrats by one seat.
When Mr. Torricelli ended his campaign, he said he didn't want his potential loss to tip the balance of the Senate.
AP Former Sen. Frank Lautenberg (right) met with Democrats at the Capitol on Thursday, including Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (left) and Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada. |
While state law prohibits ballot changes this close to an election, Democrats went to court to substitute the name of Mr. Lautenberg, arguing that New Jersey voters deserve a choice for their senator.
They won Wednesday, bringing cheers from Democrats nationwide.
"The New Jersey State Supreme Court wants to ensure that the voters there have a choice, and they will certainly have a great choice," said Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., whose title may be hanging in the balance.
Republicans denounced the decision as a mockery of election laws.
"You know, we don't think they should try to change the rules of the game at the end of the game," said Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., eager to regain his majority status. "We don't think that they should violate the law in the state."
So the Republican Party has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to again get involved in a high-profile political case.
It was less than two years ago that the justices, in a 5-4 ruling with notably angry dissents, halted recounts in the state of Florida, effectively awarding the presidency to George W. Bush.
Legal analysts doubted the court would dip its toe back into political waters.
"The odds are no," said Jan Baran, a Washington attorney who specializes in election law. "The court takes about 70 to 80 cases a year out of 7,000. But what we learned from our Florida experience is that election cases can beat the odds."
In asking the federal Supreme Court to step in, Republicans argued that the state ruling is unfair to overseas voters who are starting to receive absentee ballots. GOP lawyers also warned of election-year shenanigans across the country should the New Jersey court's ruling stand.
"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 nominating process in hopes of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat," said the filing.
Democrats noted that former Gov. Christie Whitman, a Republican, appointed six of the seven New Jersey justices who made the ruling.
But Ms. Whitman, now director of the Environmental Protection Agency, didn't give the court's handiwork a strong review.
"This shows that even very bright people can make serious mistakes," she said. "This really fuels the cynicism people have about our electoral system, and it's a shame."
Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the College of William & Mary, cited a GOP argument that the New Jersey Supreme Court usurped the Legislature's right to set elections, but doubted a federal court would resolve that dispute.
Analysts said the New Jersey Supreme Court is entitled to be the final arbiter of New Jersey law, and they doubted the U.S. Supreme Court would take up the matter - if only because of the criticism it took two years ago.
"With all the heat they took over Bush vs. Gore, I'm skeptical they would do it again," said Mr. Askin, the Rutgers law professor. "But it's certainly possible."
E-mail djackson@dallasnews.com
I can't imagine that SCOTUS wouldn't take this on.
Excerpt:
"There is absolutely no federal question involved, and there's absolutely no reason for the Supreme Court to take this case," said Frank Askin, professor at Rutgers University/Newark law school. "But I said the same thing about Bush vs. Gore, so what do I know?"
But there are key differences, analysts said.
That 2000 case revolved around disputed Florida votes that affected a national office, the presidency; the New Jersey battle affects only the residents of the state and involves access to the ballot before Election Day.
Yet both the legal case and the political race could well have national impact: control of the Senate, which now belongs to Democrats by one seat.
When Mr. Torricelli ended his campaign, he said he didn't want his potential loss to tip the balance of the Senate.
< snip >
Republicans denounced the decision as a mockery of election laws.
"You know, we don't think they should try to change the rules of the game at the end of the game," said Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., eager to regain his majority status. "We don't think that they should violate the law in the state."
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy. 
Well you should know this: Truth can be clouded by wishful thinking.
*WRONG!:
1. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
42 U.S. Code 1973ff
See also Federal Voting Assistance Program
Huh? A Senator's vote in the senate only affects his state? This is just an election for state office?.... NOT.
Shennanigans like this have a tremendous federal impact.
Exactly. FReepers see the Constitutional issue here, but the professor does not.
Academics all over the country are trying to throw cold water on this and discourage the SCOTUS from getting involved. But what's the bigger horror, that SCOTUS would force a state to follow the Constitution's Article I, Section 4, or that ballots all over the country are now subject to judicial review and "the right of the people to have a competitive election."
said Frank Askin, professor at Rutgers University/Newark law school.
To which I say B. S.! There are PLENTY of federal issues here. Beyond that, the justices of the USSC are human beings and anyone who thinks that they are going sit idly by and allow these idiots to blatantly IGNORE a ruling made by them less than two years ago has a SCREW LOOSE IMHO!
And here is the genesis of the problem: Republicans appointing Democrat Judges (probably to appease the Democrats). Democrats NEVER appoint Republican Judges!
Ms. Whitman, now director of the Environmental Protection Agency … … still out there doing who-knows-what.
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.
