Torricelli's dropping out the easy part (legal particulars of Democrats' Torricelli Shuffle)

GANNETT NEWS BUREAU ^ | 10/1/02 | MICHAEL SYMONS

[Liz]

TRENTON -- Replacing Sen. Robert Torricelli on the November ballot won't be simple.

The Democratic State Committee will need permission from the state Supreme Court to substitute another candidate -- yet to be named -- for the fallen incumbent because the election is only five weeks away. Republicans will fight the case vociferously.

[Phantom Lord]

Ya, but with the numbers being 49-49-1, and the 1 being jeffords voting with the dems, the RATS have a 50-49 majority. Jeffords cacusses with the RATS, so for organizational purposes, it is 50-49 if the Torch resigns.

[Dog Gone]

Has anyone considered the possibility that the Dems expect to be rebuffed in court?

I have, and I think it's a real possibility. Assuming the issue poses a Federal question (not a small obstacle to overcome), it might ultimately be decided by the US Supreme Court.

Even assuming a 5-4 decision against Torch, it revives the whole Florida election debacle and possibly sends droves of Democrat voters to the polls on election day across the country.

We have to be careful what we wish for. It's entirely possible that a new Democrat candidate could be defeated by Forrester if the Democrats prevail without a voter backlash.

It's going to be fascinating to see how this plays out.

[jpthomas]

I'm confused about the special election possibility. Even if the Torch resigns from his seat, doesn't the general election on Nov 5th have to go forward because this is a federal office for which the U.S. Constitution stipulates an election be held every six years? I don't see how state laws regarding special elections can trump the U.S. Constitution. I could see the governor having the authority to name a replacement to serve out the remainder of the current term, but I don't think the general election of Nov 5th can be forestalled by this maneuver.

[KellyAdmirer]

In New York, the Supreme Court level IS the trial level. Strange, but true. The first appellate level is called the Appellate Division, and the highest court is called the Court of Appeals.

[Coop]

I just think it would be interesting to see what the Dem response would be.

The Dems would scream that the Pubbies are being hypocritical, arguing against this move in NJ yet trying to implement it in CA. The press would report such claims verbatim, undoubtedly resisting any urge to point out any hypocrisy on the Dem side.

[frmrda]

This is all very confusing. The NJ "resignation" statute allows the gov. to appoint someone but makes no mention of that person BEING ON THE BALLOT.

However, the statute does say something about the Gov. having the power to call a "special" election if there is resignation w/ 30 days of a general election. That may allow the replacement to get on the ballot

People far more familiar w/ these laws than I will be fighting this tooth and nail in the coming weeks.

[Cosmo]

"disenfranchisement" is not even a real word.

[justshe]

Do you know what the negative impacts would be to Toricelli if he WERE to resign? Does it effect his pension?

I can't figure out the downside, to him re: resignation. I am wondering if he isn't holding the Dems hostage on the resignation, for some reason.

[IMRight]

However, the statute does say something about the Gov. having the power to call a "special" election if there is resignation w/ 30 days of a general election. That may allow the replacement to get on the ballot.

Sure. I'd buy that. He can call a special election for some time before 11/5 and that person (if confirmed in time) could be senator until the end of the term in January. With a replacement picked on Nov 5th!

So you get one election with (Bradley)'s name on it and then another election a week or so later (the one that counts for the next six years) without his name on it.

A silly waste of the taxpayers money with no effect.

Sure, it allows them to replace Torch with another dem for the rest of the term, but the Gov can do that anyway without a special election.

[Coop]

How accurate it is I don't know, but I read at least one article this morning on FR saying that Torricelli would not lose or lessen his pension if he resigned.

[PMCarey]

If this is allowed it will poison the elections. If they can replace Torricelli, Why can't we replace Simon with a stronger candidate.

It's worse than that. Why limit this to the major parties? The law makes no distinction between political parties, so what's to stop some third party from doing the same thing and throwing the election process into chaos? What's to stop someone from creating a third party and demanding that the ballots be rewritten?

[rstevens]

A 49 - 49 + 1 Ind gives a 50-50 with VP Cheney as a tie breaker. Then sharing of power would come into play. Or Zell Miller may cast a vote for the repub's anf give GOP the majority. Many scenario's here and I believe that the dem's will not risk it.

[rstevens]

Not so. The party can never deny an incumbent to run for his seat. They can and do however, support primary challenges, which is the right way to do things.

[Liz]

The Pubbies can begin appeals process to an ever higher court......

[BillCompton]

Has anyone considered the possibility that the Dems expect to be rebuffed in court?

I thought of this as well. They shake up the Republicans and try to get them to overreact and make a mistake. Then they try to capitalize on the mistake for PR purposes. They might try and paint the whole Republican party as dedicated to disenfranchising voters a la Florida 2000. They badly need to change the subject nationally and this might be the gambit. Also, the Patsy Mink thing might play into a larger strategy. We need to be careful not be overzealous in our reaction. I think Forrester is handling it well, so far. Faith in the system and measured comments are called for.

[Liz]

It's always fraud w/ DemoRats........we know that.

[PetroniDE]

49-49-1 (1 vacancy) is not a majority. The Dems would only have 50 votes (51 or 50+ tiebreaker) needed to pass things, but the status-quo (i.e. we are still f*****) would remain.

[VMI70]

bump for later

[Liz]

Has anyone considered the possibility that the Dems expect to be rebuffed in court? Maybe then Torri says "I _tried_ to step aside but they wouldn't let me."

Definite possibility....especially for people with no guiding principles like Tori....

[Liz]

.............ping.............