 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.
Not a problem for the dims. There will be no debates. Just a mega-financed ad campaign degrading Forrester and pumping up Lautenberg. And that's partially what sold him (Lautenberg) -- he will not have to spend his own cash. The only thing that will save NJ 'pubs is a vigorous campaign by Forrester and a healthy Republican turnout in Nov.
I disagree. many have decided that Toricelli is a bad guy. I don't see how this gambit favors HIM. The dims recognized this, and that is why they forced him to bow out -- to have him replaced on the ballot. Not a well-orchestrated scheme, IMO, but carefully managed damage control.
That's MY take, although I really liked your flat beer-snot analogy. VERY descriptive!
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.
The people of New Jersey made their choice. These allegations were out there 5 months ago. This was no "October surprise". His continuing poll slump was a surprise for the Rats. That is all.
No, the statute provides for an opportunity for a governor to make a temporary appointment, then makes provisions for an election (general or special) to fill in the Senate seat for the remainder of the term.
Here, however, the term at issue ends in January and since the only possible general election is two years from now and it would take at least six months to conduct a special election, there is no way any election could timely fill Torricelli's Senate seat.
Even if Torricelli resigned tomorrow and McGreevy called for a special election within minutes, such a special election requires public notice, an opportunity to determine who should be on the ballot, dissemination of the ballot and an opportunity for absentee voters to receive and respond. Thirty days? I could keep this in the courts for thirty days just on motions.
It's still a gamble. As Gore found in 2000, it is difficult to predict a judicial decision (unless you are talking about the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco). But this is their (dims) least risk scenario, as the polls had indicated that they were surely to lose the November election. Thus, if the election went forward,they lose. If the courts allow Lautenberg on the ballot, and he wins, they win. If the courts refuse to allow Lautenberg on the ballot, they cry havoc, defering attention from other issues, and initiate a write-in campaign. If Lautenberg wins, they win, and they have an "issue". If Lautenberg loses, they have an "issue", and in a perverse way, they win. It's painful, but yuo have to learn to think like a lowlife dim.
Very cynically true. But credit goes to Marx/Engles, not the (rather ignonomous) sudent, Clinton.
Well, while we're at it we ought to insist that the RATS change their mascot from the donkey to Benedict Arnold.
You could have the election officials work their boney butts to death, but that won't obviate the basic Constitutional requirements, federal statutes and state statutes.
Regardless, a special election commensurate with a general election is absurd. A special election refers to any election that occurs at a time not coincident with a general election. What you ask for is adding another ballot to a general election, and that's not possible under any legal theory that I am aware of in light of NJ statutes and the 17th amendment. The SCONJ cannot sua sponte create an entire election process as that would usurp the NJ legislative power provided by the U.S. Constitution.
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.