documents in the NJ election case are online

[Mark Tushnet]

I note that the "letter-memorandum" to the New Jersey Supreme Court does
not raise the Art. I question -- even in the conditional form "If you
grant the relief requested, you'll violate Art. I."  On the other hand,
it seems to me plausible to argue that the Art. I claim doesn't really
ripen until the New Jersey Supreme Court decides against Forrester, so
that his side is raising the claim at its first opportunity (although I
would have thought that his side would at least have realized that they
do have to make some sort of "properly presented" argument).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tushnet.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 242 bytes
Desc: Card for Mark Tushnet
Url : http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20021003/79f533f5/tushnet.vcf