Einer Elhauge piece in today's NY Times

[Howard Gillman]

Harvard's Einer Elhauge (are you out there?) has a piece in today's NY
Times on whether the U.S. Supreme Court may interfere in these state
proceedings.  You can find it at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/20/opinion/20ELHA.html

When the Bush federal court litigation was first announced I have to admit
that I considered the move almost completely frivolous.  But Elhauge points
out that when Anderson ran for president in 1980 he ended up in the U.S.
Supreme Court (Anderson v. Celebrezze), making the claim that Ohio's early
filing deadlines (to get on the ballot) discriminated against
late-emerging, independent candidates.  The Court, per Stevens, wrote that
presidential elections "implicate a uniquely important national
interest.... For the President and the Vice President of the United States
are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the
Nation.... The state has a less important interest in regulating
Presidential elections than statewide or local elections, because the
outcome of the former will be largely determined by voters beyond the
state's boundaries."

Comments or elaborations, either on whether this is still good law in light
of the new federalism or on whether the Florida issues are different?

Howard Gillman
USC Political Science