Rick Pildes wrote:

in response to graeme's request, there's an amusing follow-up to the MN gubernatorial race involving the last-minute withdrawal that has featured in recent discussions of the NJ Senate case.  the candidate who withdrew later brought a breach of contract suit against his own party's United States Senator, who had also been on the ballot in that same election; the claim was the sitting Senator had offered the scandal-plagued gubernatorial candidate $150,000 to withdraw from the race at the eleventh hour, in order not to drag down the party's entire ticket.  The Senate candiate, Boswitz (sp?), lost to Wellstone in that race.  Needless to say, the courts held any such deal to be unenforceable.

in response to david schultz, lower federal courts held well before Bush v. Gore that there was a federal constitutional interest in ensuring that state courts did not construe state election laws so as to bring about a sudden change in the rules of election dispute resolution.  these cases actually involve state, not national elections; the federal constitutional interest would only seem stronger when national offices are involved.  elections, even state elections, are treated differently from the routine "independent and adequate state ground" doctrine.  for the cases and an analysis, see Judging "New Law" in Election Disputes," a piece of mine in the Florida State Symposium on Bush v. Gore.

Rick


Rick Pildes               
Professor of Law, New York University School of Law   
40 Washington Sq. South
Room 322-B
New York, NY 10012-1099
also reachable at:  rick.pildes@nyu.edu
o:  212 998-6377
fax:  212 995-4341
http://www.law.nyu.edu/faculty/profiles/bios/pildesr_bio.html