07-10-2002 03:45									#121
	Support Apolyton

The Sunday NYT is being purposefully vague, methinks.

Forrester was IN the primary race. The difference was that Jim Treffinger dropped out of it. There was a scramble for who would take his spot in the primary ballot (He was the first name in line). It wasn't a case about substituting someone who wasn't running for someone who was, but rather who would take the best spot in the ballot.

	07-10-2002 03:51									#122
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Sounds like the NYT wasn't being the bastion of neutrality a few around here make it out to be...

	07-10-2002 04:00									#123
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

And in a related story --

quote: Court Asked to Toss McKinney Loss Sat Oct 5,12:54 AM ET ATLANTA (AP) - Five voters asked a federal court Friday to overturn the results of an Aug. 20 primary in which Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney ( news, bio, voting record) was defeated, arguing a crossover vote by Republicans violated the rights of black voters. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta and names, among others, Secretary of State Cathy Cox, the DeKalb and Gwinnett county elections supervisors and Denise Majette, the former judge who defeated McKinney. Georgia law allows voters to cast ballots in the primary of their choice. Before the election, some Republicans called on fellow party members to vote in the Democratic primary to help ensure McKinney's defeat. The suit asks that the crossover votes be declared unconstitutional and invalid and that McKinney _a five-term congresswoman — be declared the winner of the Democratic primary. "The issue is that black Democratic voters in the 4th District had their voting rights interfered with and violated," said Atlanta lawyer J.M. Raffauf, who represents the black plaintiffs. Chris Riggall, a spokesman for the secretary of state, said he did not believe the law prohibited voters from choosing a party in the primary.

	07-10-2002 04:11									#124
	Increase Your PM Length

Check this out, other states getting into it:

Link:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID...05-025129-4038r

quote: Calif: NJ ruling a bad election precedent From the National Desk Published 10/5/2002 5:04 AM View printer-friendly version SACRAMENTO, Calif., Oct. 5 (UPI) -- California's Secretary of State, Bill Jones -- a Republican -- has filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn the New Jersey court's decision to allow the Democratic Party of New Jersey to replace Sen. Robert Torricelli on the upcoming election's ballot. "Jones is very concerned about the potential precedents it could set in terms of federal elections in California," said Jones' spokeswoman Beth Miller Friday. "It worked once spectacularly, they will say. It can work again," the friend-of-the-court brief said. Michigan, Florida, Washington and South Carolina are among other states "joining the bandwagon," Fox News Channel reported. According to court papers, the underlying decision has far-reaching implications for the orderly conduct of elections in every state, including California. Jones, as the chief elections officer in the state of California, said any statewide action like that ordered by the New Jersey Supreme Court would make the Nov. 5 election impossible to conduct. California has 15 million registered voters and absentee voting has begun. Jones said overseas military and civilian voting is long underway. Millions of ballots in tens of thousands of different ballot styles have been printed and shipped to the state's 58 counties. "Voters have read and been guided by the candidates listed and described in the statutorily mandated statewide voter ballot pamphlet, mailed to more than 11 million households," said court documents. Although the New Jersey Supreme Court's order has no binding precedential effect on California, or indeed any other state, it nevertheless will trigger a wave of similarly damaging and destructive claims throughout the United States and in California, according to Jones. "It will, if allowed to stand, encourage candidate substitutions after voter choices have been made, in effect nullifying the will of the voters as expressed at a primary election. It will also encourage other ballot manipulations to gain partisan advantage," the brief said. "The secretary of state believes this will have an adverse effect on voter participation in California by potentially disenfranchising voters and stimulating voter cynicism that the electoral process is neither fair nor consistent." The California brief also said that the New Jersey decision must be overturned because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. "Integral to the New Jersey Supreme Court's Order is the requirement that the state Democratic Party, deposit $800,000 to a trust fund that will be used to cover the cost of implementing the newly created statewide tasks involved in switching one candidate for another so close to the general election," court papers said. Minor political parties exist in both states, but no minor political party is likely to have the financial ability to cover the cost of a late ballot change. "It gravely harms the election process when, by court order and not legislative deliberation or popular wish, wealthy political parties can manipulate the process while the voters and minor political parties are left out of the process," the court document said. Douglas Forrester, the Republican challenger to Torricelli, and the New Jersey Republican Party asked for a hearing by the full Supreme Court Thursday and for an immediate stay of any action ordered by the New Jersey Supreme Court. They want the top court to overturn the New Jersey decision, claiming replacing Torricelli with former Sen. Frank Lautenberg is in direct violation of the United States Constitution -- Article 1, Section 4, the Elections Clause. "It mandates that state legislatures determine the time, manner and place of elections." Democrats countered that the GOP nominee had no "standing" to enter the case since the case before the New Jersey Supreme Court involved Democrats and state officials and that Forrester could not show that he is being harmed. Torricelli, first elected to Congress in 1982 and to the Senate in 1996, originally led in the polls but fell behind by more than 10 points after allegations he took gifts from a campaign contributor. He withdrew from the race Monday because, "I not intend, to be the cause of the Democratic Party losing its one-seat majority in the U.S. Senate." "Basically the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed the issue and we feel it has nothing to do with federal law, so there is no reason for the Supreme Court to pick it up," Tovah Ravitz, spokeswoman for Democratic Senate Campaign Committee told United Press International earlier in the week. "I have a hard time believing the justices will want to keep a candidate who has dropped out of the race on the ballot." According to Kevin Sheridan, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, if the New Jersey decision is upheld it could create a chaotic precedent. "We believe in the rule of law and the law in New Jersey said no candidate can drop out of a race 51 days before the election," Sheridan told UPI. "Apparently the Democrats feel they are entitled to a majority in the Senate and will attempt to go around the law to get it -- they play for keeps." Sheridan said the GOP believed there are probably eight races too close to call at this moment and that the Republicans feel they have four really good chances in Minnesota, Missouri, South Dakota and New Jersey. "It's hypocritical for Tom Daschle to say the New Jersey Senate race needs to be a two-party race because there are several Senate races where the incumbent is unopposed or with token opposition," he said. The Supreme Court is in recess but the new term begins Monday. Copyright © 2002 United Press International

	07-10-2002 04:58									#125
	Increase the size of your Attachments

The McKinney case is hilarious and without merit. It's an OPEN PRIMARY, and then Dems get mad that Republicans ended up picking who won? LOL!

The reason there are open primaries is because in the general election there were basically only one party that had a chance, like in that district. Basically the Dem who wins the primary wins, because there are hardly any Republicans there.

	07-10-2002 05:37									#126
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Don't confuse them with anymore facts Imran.

Some people don't realize that much of the south is almost entirely democratic as a matter of tradition more than anything. Open primaries are a matter of fairness to all voters. In my county in Tennessee for example almost all public offices are decided in the primary level. If only the democrats were allowed to vote THEN you would have an unfair situation. Anyway I think that the whole 2 party system is corrupt. George Washington warned against what we are doing now. As I said before, the third party candidates had the most to say at the hearing but they were ignored.

Last edited by Lincoln on 07-10-2002 at 05:42

	07-10-2002 12:31									#127
	Inflate your Upload Space

There seems to be a crucial difference to the Florida situation. The Florida SC interpreted the statute in a plausible way (that is my opinion from reading the decision, no matter how much the republicans want to scream), while in this case the court openly put the statute into the trash bin.

Now in Bush v Gore the majority cooked up some bullshit that they essentially pulled out of I think Scalia's ass. But even upon the dissenting opinions' reasoning there's an excellent chance this NJ decision won't hold up.

Is there a chance this will be settled in the courts before the actual election ?

	07-10-2002 12:45									#128
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Who knows? It's fast tracked to the US SC.

The Dems claim the statute says nothing about replacing a candidate after the 51st day and the statute simply details replacement of a candidate before the 51st day. The Reps are saying, that silence of the procedure of replacing a candidate after the 51st day means it is illegal to do so. And, doing so would deprive the primary voters of their due process rights.

So, we'll see how this one turns out.

	07-10-2002 12:51									#129
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Can someone summarise this thread for me please?

	07-10-2002 13:44									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Amercan laws r gay.

	07-10-2002 17:55									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

The simmary is simple:

A law says that you cannot do something after 51 days so the Democrats are changing the meaning of 51.

	07-10-2002 17:58									#132
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The new meaning is that 51 means whatever the hell they want it to mean depending on how far they are behind in opinion polls.

	07-10-2002 23:22									#133
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The SCOTUS just said it would not hear the case, so Lautenberg will be on the ballot.

	07-10-2002 23:28									#134
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov The SCOTUS just said it would not hear the case, so Lautenberg will be on the ballot.

Link?

	07-10-2002 23:30									#135
	Everything you know is wrong! Full PM-box? Change here!

I predict that fun times are ahead in election law.

	07-10-2002 23:34									#136
	Support Apolyton

This just in:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ersey_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."

	08-10-2002 01:40									#137
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

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.

	08-10-2002 01:43									#138
	Support Apolyton

quote: 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.

	08-10-2002 01:45									#139
	Get a bigger avatar today!

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.

	08-10-2002 01:58									#140
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

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.

	08-10-2002 02:00									#141
	Full PM-box? Change here!

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.

	08-10-2002 02:41									#142
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: 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.

	08-10-2002 03:31									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: 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.

	08-10-2002 03:56									#144
	Increase the size of your Attachments

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.

	08-10-2002 07:30									#145
	Remove this text

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.

	08-10-2002 07:55									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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.

	08-10-2002 08:47									#147
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: 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.

	08-10-2002 12:39									#148
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: 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" ?

	08-10-2002 13:13									#149
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

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.

	08-10-2002 13:18									#150
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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 ?