I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican and no big fan of federalism
but the efforts to go over the head of the NJ Supremes makes a mockery
of Michigan v. Long and over 100 years of legal precedent saying that
the state supreme courts are the final arbiters of their own law.

What the NJ S.Ct. did is the same thing the FL did two years ago was
err on the side of maximizing voter choice and not let archaic state
laws hinder the ability of citizens to express their preferences.

Efforts to go over the head of the NJ Ct. seem destined to prove that
the Legal Crits and the Realists were correct in their assertions that
the law is simply an expression of power and ideology and not legal
principle.  Second, these efforts also set the dangerous principle that
there is no such thing as a local election and that, contrary to Tip
O'Neill, all politics is not local.  Are we prepared to federalize every
dispute?  From many of those who claim fidelity to local control and
power, this appears to be the case.
						
The laws in NJ defining time frames for leaving the ballot and not
allowing for substitutes are the product of horse and buggy boss
politics days when it as both difficult to print new ballots, etc.,in a
hurry and when these laws were crafted by one party to screw another or
to help maintain the power of party leaders, at the expense of the
voters.

In1980 John Anderson had to fight for ballot access in many states that
made it impossible for people like him to jump ship from a party and
then run as an independent.  These so called "so loser" laws were aimed
at protecting party leaders at the expense of the voters.  Were voters
well-served by allowing Anderson to run?  Yes.

In 1990 the MN GOP party was controlled by Bible bangers who nominated
a candidate for governor.  He also won in the primary , beating the
moderate and then state auditor Arnie Carlson.  Four weeks before the
election it was revealed that the GOP nominee had a colored past and he
had to leave the ballot.  MN had laws very similar to those found in NJ
but the MN S.Ct. (mostly Democrats) wisely allowed for the substitution
and Carlson went on to win and serve two terms.  Were Minnesotans well
served by letting Carlson run?  Yes, it gave voters a choice, not an
echo of one.

I think we can learn from the Anderson and MN examples.

David Schultz, Professor
Hamline University
Graduate School of Public
Administration and Management
MS-A1740
1536 Hewitt Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3098 (fax)