 AP Photo
|
||||||
|
|
||
|
Posted on 10/01/2002 6:03:54 PM PDT by eddie willers
By JOHN P. McALPIN, Associated Press Writer
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - Desperate to keep their single-seat majority in the Senate, Democrats have chosen former Sen. Frank Lautenberg to replace scandal-tainted Sen. Robert Torricelli ( news, bio, voting record) on the November ballot, The Associated Press has learned.
|
||||||||||||
The decision was reached Tuesday evening after a full day of meetings among top state Democrats, according to a party source familiar with the discussions.
An announcement was expected later Tuesday.
Earlier in the day, the 78-year-old Lautenberg indicated he was ready to run.
"I was there (in the Senate) 18 years, and I enjoyed virtually every day," Lautenberg said in a telephone interview from his car as he headed to the governor's mansion for meetings with top state Democrats. "I didn't like raising the money, but I'm not going to mind it as much this time, because it's kind of fresh start."
Whether Lautenberg's name will actually appear the ballot with Republican Douglas Forrester will be decided in court. Republicans say it is too late to replace Torricelli, who dropped out Monday as his poll numbers continued to fall amid questions about his ethics.
The New Jersey Supreme Court will hear arguments on the case Wednesday.
Sen. William Frist, chairman of the Senate GOP campaign committee, said Republicans would consider an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court ( news - web sites) if the New Jersey court rules in favor of the Democrats.
"This is a desperate grasp at getting around the law and the people of New Jersey are tired of having their leaders go around the law," he said.
Frist said some absentee ballots have already been cast and that other ballots have been distributed to military personnel overseas; the New Jersey Association of County Clerks said about 1,600 absentee ballots were mailed out.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said that by objecting to Torricelli's request, Republicans were "denying the people of New Jersey a choice" in the election.
Five months ago, Torricelli's Senate seat was considered relatively safe. But support plummeted after he was admonished by the Senate ethics committee for his relationship with a 1996 campaign supporter, and he soon became the most vulnerable incumbent in the country.
Few, however, expected a court fight five weeks before Election Day.
"This is one for the books," said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. "It will long be remembered."
Under New Jersey law, a party can replace a statewide nominee on the ballot if the person drops out at least 51 days before the election. Torricelli missed the deadline by 15 days.
However, Democrats say decades of state court decisions put voters' rights above filing deadlines and other technical guidelines.
Attorney General David Samson argued in papers filed with the court Tuesday that the justices have the power to relax the deadline to withdraw and allow Democrats to post another candidate. Samson, who was appointed to his job by Democratic Gov. James E. McGreevey, said election laws have long been interpreted liberally to allow voters every opportunity.
Legal experts agreed.
"In a substantial number of those cases, the courts have ruled on the side of being inclusive," said Richard Perr, an election law professor at Rutgers University Law School.
Six of the seven justices on the state's highest court were appointed by a former Republican governor.
Lautenberg's selection as the potential Democratic savior is replete with irony. He and Torricelli feuded openly while serving together.
"I'm not in a gloating mode," Lautenberg said. "I don't want to be smug about this. It was unfortunate for him and an unfortunate thing for all of us."
Lautenberg is a supporter of abortion rights and staunch opponent of the death penalty. He brings two major strengths to the difficult bid: statewide name recognition and a huge reserve of personal wealth he can use in the campaign. Also, unlike the House members who were also considered as substitute candidates, he does not have anything to lose by running and losing.
Lautenberg was a business executive before serving three terms in the Senate, deciding against a re-election bid in 2000. He counted among his accomplishments a law requiring companies to disclose chemicals they release into the environment, a law banning smoking on domestic flights and a law banning gun ownership by those convicted of domestic violence.
They are still based upon precedent, albeit bad ones, such as Miller - I won't get into Miller, except to agree that it should NOT be anything to base gun control upon.
But if SCONJ were to rule in favor of this, I can see absolutely NO precedent. And the political opportunities for mischief would be immense. Candidate wins the primary. Candidate is getting his a** kicked in the polls in September. Just replace the candidate. It would make a complete mockery of the entire electoral process - the primary elections were created to accomodate political parties, and now a political party wants to circumvent the results OF THEIR OWN PRIMARY? Give me a break! I would hope SCONJ would not want to go there - and although I did not agree with aspects of Bush v. Gore - namely, the reliance of SCOTUS upon the concept of equal protection instead of just taking MacPherson and beating SCOFLAW over the head with it - since we now have an electoral equal protection precedent because of Bush v. Gore, it can now be applied to NJ if SCONJ sells their souls and allows Lautenberg on the ballot.
Do you think the Democrats might ask him to "withdraw" and put somebody in there who can win?
Oh, SCOTUS would take the case if the SCONJ does the expected and changed election law in the middle of an election in order to tamper with a NATIONAL SENATORIAL ELECTION.
We need to start quoting the Constitution...getting that word out.
And Lautenberg was selected by a free and open primary, right, Mr. Plurality Leader?
Hey, I hope so. I am not holding my breath.
The rats aren't saying much about it costing the state $4 million.. ($2 million per)
that'd be more "fair", heck we knew he was gonna lose a month before the election, and we are sure of his loss 6 years after the election...so lets just redo the whole thing, with a candidate who "polls" better. (isn't that what primaries are for?)
Oh, Liddy? sorry....wrong Dole
FReegards
That illuminates the absolute absurdity of what the Dems are trying to do. Torricelli is not dead. He is not convicted of a crime. He has not confessed to a crime - instead, he has proclaimed he has only made "mistakes." So why the need to replace him on the ballot, other than the fact that he is getting skinned in the polls? The Constitution does not recognize political parties. The states have set up primary elections to accomodate political parties. And now the Dems wish to circumvent the results of THEIR OWN PRIMARY ELECTION and run someone else. If SCONJ can engineer a decision to justify such an action, they will destroy the carefully cultivated image they have created - NJ Supreme Court rulings are often cited by other state courts, such as Mt. Laurel years ago. SCOFLA had no such reputation to protect, and in the end I would guess that SCONJ has nothing to gain and everything to lose if they go along with this.
Blame Donald DiFrancesco and all the other RINOs in Trenton for that.
Just as that dickhead John Warner did with Oliver North, it is scumbag "moderates" within the GOP who doom our chances at the polls time and again, because of political or personal qualms with the candidate.
Somehow Democrats don't have this problem, and support people like Zell Miller and Ben Nelson enthusiastically. Anything that gains them power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.