New Jersey ballot issue goes to high court

WASHINGTON -- Republicans went to the Supreme Court on Thursday to try to stop New Jersey Democrats from replacing Sen. Robert Torricelli on the Nov. 5 ballot for a re-election race he seemed likely to lose. Control of the Senate could hang on the court's reply.

The Republicans want the justices to block a unanimous ruling from New Jersey's highest court that would let former Sen. Frank Lautenberg jump in for Torricelli, whose ethics problems had become the focus of the race after he was admonished by the Senate.

Less than two years after the Bush v. Gore case settled the 2000 presidential fight, the Supreme Court was once again in the middle of a high-stakes fight over state election rules.

There was no immediate word whether the justices would block the lower court ruling or agree to hear the Republicans' broader constitutional complaints. The court asked the New Jersey Democratic Party to respond in writing to the GOP's legal filing.

Republicans argue it's too close to Election Day to replace Torricelli and that the Democrats should not be allowed to dump a candidate just because he's trailing.

New Jersey law bars replacement of candidates less than 51 days before an election, the GOP said. The lower court ruling would switch the candidates 33 days before Election Day, the party said.

Democrats control the Senate by one seat, so the New Jersey race could be key in the Nov. 5 elections. Democrats chose Lautenberg, 78, as Torricelli's replacement on Tuesday and he was campaigning hard on Thursday, saying, "I realized how much I missed it."

Lautenberg, who retired from the Senate in 2001 after three terms, greeted commuters at a rail station in Hoboken, N.J., then traveled to Washington meet with Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and with national labor leaders.

On Monday, Torricelli said he would drop out of the campaign against Republican challenger Douglas Forrester out of concern that a New Jersey loss could cost his party the Senate.

Forrester was a virtual unknown before his nomination, but made rapid gains as voters soured on Torricelli. Torricelli was admonished by the Senate this summer after an ethics investigation.

The 2000 presidential election fight in Florida set a precedent for the Supreme Court to get involved in state election fights, the GOP argued.

The high court heard two election-related cases after the too-close-to-call voting that year. The decisive Bush v. Gore case ended ballot recounts in Florida sought by Democrat Al Gore and effectively called the election for George W. Bush.

Richard Hasen, an election law professor at Loyola Law School, said the court has far less reason to get involved this time around. There is less at stake now, and controversy over the court's role may have left the justices gun-shy, he said.

"It may well end with a fizzle instead of a bang like last time," Hasen said.

Thursday's Supreme Court filing was addressed first to Justice David H. Souter, who handles appeals from New Jersey. It calls the state court ruling unconstitutional and asks the court to place it on hold.

"Prompt action from this court is required to prevent growing public cynicism regarding evenhanded application of election law rules," the GOP wrote. Republican lawyers said they expected an answer within two days.

Republicans argued that the lower court violated the Constitution's requirement that state legislatures set the "times, places and manner" of congressional elections. In this case, the New Jersey court usurped that power, the GOP contended.

California's secretary of state plans to file a friend-of-the-court brief on the issue Friday, said Beth Miller, a spokeswoman for Republican Bill Jones. He is "very concerned about the potential precedence it could set in terms of federal elections in California," she said.

Christie Whitman, who appointed six of the seven New Jersey justices during her term as governor, said, "This shows that even very bright people can make serious mistakes." Whitman, who now heads the Environmental Protection Agency, said, "This really fuels the cynicism people have about our electoral system, and it's a shame."

Republicans also contended that the state court decision could improperly strip voting rights from New Jersey residents overseas, such as those serving abroad in the military. About 1,700 absentee and military have already been mailed with Torricelli's name on them.

The state GOP has also said it plans to pursue the overseas ballot issue in a separate case to be filed in federal court in New Jersey.

In New Jersey, Mercer County Superior Court Judge Linda R. Feinberg ordered Democrats to pay the court $800,000 by noon Friday to cover initial costs of reprinting ballots and mailing new absentee ballots.

The Supreme Court case is 02-A-289.

------

On the Net:

Forrester campaign: http://www.forrester2002.com

New Jersey Democrats: http://www.njdems.org