New Jersey election law?

[Parry, John]

For what it is worth, the republican party brief goes out of its way to
highlight the political stakes.  I'm paraphrasing, but the brief calls the
justices' attention (as if they don't know) to the fact that control of the
senate is up for grabs and that the NJ race could make the difference.
According to the brief, this fact is a reason why 4 justices are likely to
vote for granting cert.

John Parry

-----Original Message-----
From: Howard Gillman [mailto:gillman at USC.EDU]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:38 AM
To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: New Jersey election law?

I don't think it's simply that Kennedy and O'Connor have become gun shy.
More importantly, there's a different political/strategic environment.
In B v. G there was certainty that a favorable resolution would hand the
presidency (and, at the time, the Senate) to the Republicans.  In this
case the practical institutional consequences of an intervention are
less certain.  The Court isn't determining the winner of the NJ Senate
election, and overall control of the Senate is not necessarily dependent
on this outcome.  Moreover, in B v. G there was much more insistence on
the part of a fully mobilized Republican Party that the Court get
involved.

Then again, if one of the perceived benefits of B v. G (at the time) was
that it would put judicial appointments firmly in the hands of the
Republican Party, then that motivation is also in play this time around,
and so it is not unimaginable that there would be some interest on the
Court for another intervention.

Howard Gillman
USC

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for con law professors
[mailto:CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Segall
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 8:14 AM
To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: New Jersey election law?

I am a little surprised that with all of the excellent discussion of
doctrine on this list, few are paying attention to what will truly
decide how the Court approaches this controversy.  It seems to me
unlikely, though not impossible, that Justices Kennedy and O'Connor will
want to decide another election in the manner of Bush v. Gore.
Certainly, an analysis of that question, if such an analysis is
possible, is as important as the doctrinal issues.