Former N.J. federal judge joins brief opposing Trump election order

Former U.S. District Court of New Jersey Chief Judge John W. Bissell has joined 55 other retired judges in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject the Trump administration’s attempt to reinstate an executive order imposing new federal requirements on state election systems.

Bissell, who was nominated to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan, served as a U.S. District Court judge in New Jersey from 1982 to 2005, including six years as chief judge.

The amicus brief, filed Monday in Trump v. California, argues that the order improperly intrudes on authority the Constitution gives states to administer elections and could cause confusion just months before the November midterm elections.

Bissell is among 36 retired federal judges who signed the brief. The group also includes 20 former state judges.  Thirty-three of the 56 were appointed by Republican presidents or governors or elected as Republicans.

Former New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin’s Newark-based law firm, Platkin LLP, is representing the judges, along with the Democracy Defenders Fund and the Campaign Legal Center.  Platkin is listed as counsel, with Platkin LLP partner Angela Cai serving as counsel of record.

The filing asks the Supreme Court to deny emergency applications by the Trump administration and a group of Republican-led states seeking a stay of an injunction issued by a federal judge in Massachusetts.  The First Circuit Court of Appeals previously declined to stay the ruling.

The former judges contend that Executive Order 14399 would force states to overhaul voter eligibility and mail-ballot procedures without congressional authorization.

“Granting a stay would inject new federal requirements into state election systems just months before the November election,” the brief states.

The judges said the order has already forced states to spend money, disrupt election preparations and respond to what they called an ongoing intrusion on state sovereignty. They warned that reinstating it could confuse voters, strain election officials and trigger a wave of last-minute litigation.

“Denying the applications avoids these needless harms,” they wrote.