WSJ Editorial Predicts GOP Lawsuits a la Bush V. Gore

[McCamy Taylor]

Today, in the WSJ editorial page, there is an opinion piece in which John Fund predicts a replay of Florida 2000 after the fall midterm elections.

"Litigation Day
Control of Congress may be decided in the courts, starting Nov. 8.

"Monday, October 23, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

"Everyone is speculating about which party will control Congress after next month's voting. But we may not know for a while. We could see either party pursue the kind of lawsuits that Al Gore unleashed in Florida in 2000 and contest any number of tight races that are within the "margin of litigation." Recounts and even seating challenges in Congress could stretch on for weeks--another endless election. "We're waiting for the day that pols can cut out the middleman and settle all elections in court," jokes the political newsletter Hotline."



Fund says coyly that "either" party may file these suits, ignoring the real issue. It is in the GOP's best interest to delay decisions until January. Recall that the Busby-Bilbray election in California was prematurely decided by Congress when Hasturt rushed to swear in the Republican before the votes were even certified. Then, a Calfornia court said "Oops. Once Congress swears in a Congressman, the state loses its right to decide an election." This, after Congressional Republicans intervened in the case. Here is more info from Bradblog on the appeal:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3568#more-3568

Here is my response to Mr. Fund's editorial, which seems intended to prepare readers for a lot of lawsuits but which deliberately does not mention the 400 Elephant in the room. I guess he knows that his readers know what he is talking about but he does not want to alert anyone who is not in the loop or make it look too much like a deliberate strategy. The courts frown upon people deliberately tying them up with frivilous lawsuits just to make cases drag on and on.

My response to the WSJ:

"I find it odd that in such a complete listing of election challenges, Mr. Fund fails to mention a recent court case in California. Congress sent a brief to that state court, advising it that once Congress swears in a new member, the states lose their jurisdiction over an election. That means that come January, 2007, if Dennis Hasturt decides to declare certain candidates of his choice the "winners" of their contested elections and swear them into office, their state election boards will no longer be able to count chads or determine the eligibility of the provisional ballots.

"At this point, the elections will get thrown into a much more time consuming process as states battle the federal government to see who has the ultimate say in elections. While Bush v. Gore, a suit filed by Bush was not supposed to set a precedent, it will surely be cited as one by those who insist that Congress must have a clear majority and be ready to act immediately.

"What this means is that if the party already in power is able to tie up enough seats through litigation until January, 2007 so that no clear majority can be sworn in, Hasturt will be able to use this as an excuse to make the same decision that the SCOTUS made in Bush v. Gore in 2000, "for the good of the country" though in fact it will be for the good of his party."


Be prepared and respond to each phoney-baloney lawsuit with lightening speed---for the good of the country.

:dem:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

1. They'll sue Diebold...

Hey! We paid good money to rig this election! We want our money back!!

[dajoki]

2. Yes, I can see it comming...

from the party of tort reform!!

[Supersedeas]

3. With Scalia waiting in the wings