I just spoke with a reporter who covers the Supreme Court who told me that the stay application which was directed to Justice Souter (as the Circuit Justice for the 3rd circuit) remains in Justice Souter's chambers. Until he refers it, there can be no vote by other justices. The longer Souter holds on to this, the less likely it is that the Supreme Court can issue an order reversing the NJ court that can be effective.

One argument that is not getting much play is the effect of Branch v. Miss.---being heard by the Court later in the 2002 term. As Pam Karlan posted the other day, the same Art. I, section 4 issue is presented there in the context of a state court refashioning a state legislature's congressional redistricting. Shouldn't the Republicans argue loudly that if the Court is going to be addressing this issue later anyway, why not address it now in this context?

Bob Bauer kindly sent me a pdf of the Democratic opposition to the stay motion.  It is too big to send to the list, so I have posted it to the following web page for downloading:

http://faculty.lls.edu/hasen/opposition.pdf

If anyone has the Republican papers, please send a link to the list or send a pdf to me for posting.

The Democrats' papers note an apparent procedural problem: lack of Forrester's allegations of irreparable injury. But it seems plausible that voters could be seen as suffering irreparable injury, at least given that the Court found an injury in Bush v. Gore through the recount process under the Florida court's standards.