The October 14 issue of the Westchester Journal-News (a daily newspaper covering the three counties north of New York city) carries an op-ed suggesting that the U.S. Supreme Court may rule in favor of Margarita Lopez Torres, in the pending case over primary ballot access. It says, “Perhaps when the high court issues its ruling, New Yorkers will discover that the justices were merely playing devil’s advocate as they fished for answers.” Most of the description and commentary about the October 3 oral argument carried in other newspapers has tended to predict that New York State will win the case. The Westchester Journal-News op-ed is here. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this.
Tenuate, http://buytenuate.blogspot.com
The article’s drafter clearly did not attend oral argument. I would not be shocked if the vote for reversal of the remedy included every single justice on the high court. As things stand, the Brennan Center clearly lost 8 of the 9 judges (assuming Thomas votes with the other conservative justices). The reasoning is simple. While a worthy policy choice, the Brennan Center wants different roles (as stated by the petitioners) for the voters then provided by New York. Further, most, if not all, of the problems identified by the Brennan Center do not relate to the law, but to the constitutionally-protected associational rights of the other participants in the process, such a party leaders supporting candidates. Perhaps the Brennan Center and its supporters have points, but that is – as Justice Stevens noted – policy arguments not constitutional ones and that is a big difference.