Battle for the US senate. Repeat of 2000 fiasco? NJ SC to intervene.

[DRoseDARs]

This just in:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=514&ncid=514&e=8&u=/ap/20021007/ap_on_el_se/new_jersey_senate_34

"High Court Won't Take N.J. Sen. Case
Mon Oct 7, 2:11 PM ET
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court refused on Monday to be drawn into New Jersey's Senate dispute, allowing the Democrats to replace their candidate one month before the election.

The case resurrected memories of the court's intervention in the Bush-Gore presidential contest. But this time the justices stayed out and let the decision of a Democratic-dominated state supreme court stand.

The Democrats may now go ahead with plans to replace Sen. Robert Torricelli (news, bio, voting record) with former Sen. Frank Lautenberg on the Nov. 5 ballot in their effort to retain their one-seat hold on the Senate.

New Jersey Republicans had called the switch a political ploy intended to dump a candidate who seemed sure to lose in favor of a potential winner. They had asked the Supreme Court to stop the Democrats, arguing that the candidate swap came too close to Election Day.

The high court did not explain its reasons for rejecting the GOP appeal.

Word from the high court came on the first day of the new Supreme Court term, and a week after Torricelli bowed out of his re-election race.

Torricelli said he would step aside after polls showed him losing ground to Republican challenger Douglas Forrester who had made Torricelli's ethics problems the focus of his campaign.

The Democrats quickly chose Lautenberg as a replacement, and the Republicans went to court.

New Jersey's highest court unanimously approved the candidate switch, a decision that Forrester's lawyers had said "opens the doors of American elections to considerable mischief."

The Republicans appealed to the high court last Thursday, arguing that the candidate swap was both illegal and unconstitutional. State law prevents such an 11th hour switch, and it could strip voting rights from absentee and overseas voters, the GOP argued.

About 1,700 absentee and overseas military ballots have already been mailed with Torricelli's name on them.

If the state ruling stood, "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 justices in a court filing last Thursday.

There was plenty of time to reprint ballots, Democrats assured the Supreme Court in paperwork filed Friday.

"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.

As in the 2000 election fight, Republicans contested 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 (news - web sites) had sought the recounts in hopes of erasing George W. Bush's tiny lead.

New Jersey Republicans are also pursuing a separate challenge in federal court in Trenton on behalf of two people the party contends could lose their votes.

The Supreme Court case is 02-A-289."

[Lincoln]

They would have never heard the end of it if they intervened. It is too bad though that the precedent will stand. If the law is just a loose guidline then why even have a legislative body that answers to the people? It seems like the courts make the laws now. Even the Democratic majority in NJ (according to the latest poll) think that the NJ supreme court decision was unfair but Lautenberg is also ahead in the polls.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Lincoln
It is too bad though that the precedent will stand. If the law is just a loose guidline then why even have a legislative body that answers to the people?

The Republicans are still carrying on with a seperate challenge in federal court.

[Boris Godunov]

I am glad they did not intervene. They shouldn't have intervened in Florida, they had no jurisdiction. Right or wrong, in matters of state election law, the ruling of the State Supreme Court should be the final one.

[walruskkkch]

All this means is that any state law governing the nomination and election process can be circumvented for any reason. So much for the "states" determining the manner or conduct of an election.

[Lincoln]

I think that Bush v. Gore is one of the best decisions made by the USSC. It is slammed because it was Bush v. Gore. If it was a low profile case between Smith and Jones it would be hailed as the epitome of fairness. In elections that effect the entire country the feds clearly have an interest. That is clear in federal election law. I agree though that this case should stand as it is because it will be a zoo if it is overturned now.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Right or wrong, in matters of state election law, the ruling of the State Supreme Court should be the final one.

What if a state supreme court rules that excluding blacks is consistent with state election law? Due process does allow for the federal government to decide on state election law in limited circumstances.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Right or wrong, in matters of state election law, the ruling of the State Supreme Court should be the final one.

There are several Federal statutes that you probably feel need to be repealed if you truely believe that.

[Ned]

I think the Supremes ducked due to lack of standing by the Republican.

Regardless, I remain deeply concerned with the holding of the NJ Sup. Ct that the Democratic Party has a right to have a candidate on the ballot. (It is this "right" that allows them to switch candidates.) If the NJ legislature were to actually say this in a statute, it would be declared unconstitutional on any number of grounds, including equal protection. So how does the NJ Sup. Court get away with it through equity?

To date, however, I haven't seen any of the complainers making this argument. Perhaps this is why they are losing.

[Swissy]

All the Supreme Court is saying is they will not take the case now. This does not prohibit them from taking on the case and striking down the NJSC decision once it has progressed through the court system. This may eventually be overturned, but probably a couple a years down the line. It will have no effect on this election, but will strike down this dangerous precedent.

The only aspect of this election the Federal Courts could effect now is the absentee ballots. All absentee ballots which have to be mailed overseas should have gone out by now (30 days preceeding an election). If this has not happen the court could order an immediate release, using whatever ballot they have onhand. Also, any absentee ballots already returned must be counted. I envision many county election officials trying to disallow those ballots as they are not the "current" official ballot. Some may also try to count votes for Torricelli as Lautenberg votes.

The most interesting aspect of this could be the effect the new election finance reform law and the rules prohibiting negative ads by special interest groups 30 days preceeding the election, may have had on all this. It could be argued the Democrats were going to dump Torricelli months ago and replace him with Lautenberg, but knew many special interest groups would be itching to unload on him. You don't serve three terms in the Senate and not get some group mad at you. Remember the Lautenberg Amendment to the Federal Gun Control Act went into effect two years before he retired from the Senate. The gun lobby never got a chance to unload on him. I think the Democrats played this one very close to the edge, knowing they had to get Toricelli off the ballot by 30 days before the election (I doubt even the NJSC would have done anything if the 30 day deadline had past), but not have Lautenberg on to soon as to give special interest groups a shot at him.

[Lincoln]

I hope that this precedent does not stand regardless of the effect on this election. It is an open invitation for abuse. And I hope that the gun lobby does not go overboard when they unload on him.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I hope that this precedent does not stand regardless of the effect on this election. It is an open invitation for abuse. And I hope that the gun lobby does not go overboard when they unload on him.

Don't worry they will for sure (the gun lobby).
On the election, we have not heard the last for sure, now that the USSC has said no to the REP.

[Roland]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Due process does allow for the federal government to decide on state election law in limited circumstances.

Sure, but do you agree that in Bush v Gore the SC just overlooked the word "limited" ?

[Ned]

The meaning and interpretation of the Constitution's grant of authority to a state legislature to enact certain laws regulating elections of presidents and senators is clearly a Federal Case. One really does not have to resort to the Due Process or Equal Protection clauses to for the Federal Courts to decide whether a state's supreme court can simply override an election statuted enacted by the legislature. That question is a question of interpreting the United States Constutitution - a matter clearly within the purview of the US Supreme Court.

[Roland]

So if a state legislature's election statute is in violation of a state's constitution, as it violates say the bill of rights, or as it has been "passed" and published without due majority, the state courts are barred by the federal constitution to strike it down ?