IT AIN'T THAT COMPLICATED!

Politics is a game. Like baseball. Teams meet, play according to the rules and one wins. If the rules say you can send in substitute batters or runners, you can. If the rules do not allow juggling the lineup for advantage, you can't.

Why do Democrats have so much trouble with this? They tried to game the system in Florida two years ago. Yes, it was a close election. But picking several heavily Democratic districts for a manual recount was too clever by half. And arbitrarily jettisoning the rules for certifying the count while the game was in progress was cheating. They weakened our democracy by trying.

Now we are going to see a replay in New Jersey. If they succeed, they will undermine the process of democratic elections. And, as in Florida, lawyers will spout sophistries and the press will befuddle the issues with misinformation and misinterpretation.

Yesterday, as we all waited for Torricelli to withdraw or resign, the media got off to a good start. Not one talking head used its brain to analyze what the rules actually say.

First, about withdrawing from the race. He can't. The Democrats chose their roster and can't change it in the middle of the game.

19:13-20. In the event of a vacancy, howsoever caused, among candidates nominated at primaries, which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election, ... a candidate shall be selected in the following manner....

... A selection made pursuant to this section shall be made not later than the 48th day preceding the date of the general election....

The New York Times, which apparently has a dog in this race, reports that “New Jersey election law allows political parties to change candidates 51 days or more before the election, but the law is unclear about making a switch after that point.” Unclear? What could be clearer? You can't. The courts may fashion a remedy to deal with an untimely death, but Torricelli's death is political not corporeal. If the Democrats want to replace him, they should hire a hit man. A democratic election is not a tag-team sport.

But the talking heads whine: “the people deserve a choice, don't they?” Yes. They have a choice: Forrester or Torricelli. That's the choice they chose in their primaries. Torricelli's name will, unless the courts abet cheating, appear on the ballot.

See. Isn't that really rather simple and straightforward? Wait a minute! These devious Democrats aren't through yet! That have a plan. Their outlet, the New York Times, floats it for them: “Democrats said that one provision of New Jersey election law allows the party to replace any candidate who dies or leaves office within 30 days of the election, leaving open the possibility that Mr. Torricelli might be asked to step down from his Senate seat before the election.”

This is layered misinformation – wrong in so many ways as to obscure all fact and meaning. Let me explain the issues simply.

New Jersey law says that the Governor may fill a vacancy in the State's representation in the U.S. Senate by appointment. That replacement will fill the seat until the end of that term or until a substitute can be elected to fill the unexpired portion of that term, whichever comes first. Every two years, in even-numbered years, there is a general election – a Federal election. If the vacancy occurs more than 30 days before one of these, then that election will be used to pick the substitute. If less than 30 days, then the election two years down the road will be used (unless the Governor calls a special election first).

19:3-26. Vacancies in United States senate; election to fill; temporary appointment by governor
If a vacancy shall happen in the representation of this state in the United States senate, it shall be filled at the general election next succeeding the happening thereof, unless such vacancy shall happen within thirty days next preceding such election, in which case it shall be filled by election at the second succeeding general election, unless the governor of this state shall deem it advisable to call a special election therefor, which he is authorized hereby to do.

The governor of this state may make a temporary appointment of a senator of the United States from this state whenever a vacancy shall occur by reason of any cause other than the expiration of the term; and such appointee shall serve as such senator until a special election or general election shall have been held pursuant to law and the board of state canvassers can deliver to his successor a certificate of election.

How does this help the Democrats cheat in the election? It doesn't. But they think it does. Some of their talking heads claim that if Torricelli resigns within 30 days of the election the Governor can appoint a substitute and cancel the November election – postpone it a year or two. Wrong. A 1997 Supreme Court decision (Foster, Governor of Louisiana et. al. v. Love) says he can't. The election to fill the NJ Senate seat from January 2003 to January 2009 must – and will -- be held as scheduled in November.

If he resigns more than thirty days from the election, the election for the substitute to fill out his unexpired term -- all two months of it – can be held in November. Side by side with the election to fill the new, six year term.

If he resigns and a substitute is appointed within thirty days of the election, no election to fill the unexpired term will be held. Unless, that is, the governor decides to hold one in two years – two years after the term has expired and the appointed substitute has gone off to other pursuits.

How does this help the Democrats? The latter option favored by the New York Times – resigning within 30 days of the election – does not help at all. There is nothing in the law about the substitute being on the ballot in the coming November election. But if Torricelli resigns and a substitute is appointed more than 30 days before the election, doesn't the substitute appear on the November ballot by law?

Yes. For the November 2002 to January 2003 unexpired term – two months. Not for the January 2003 to January 2009 term – six years. And if the substitute loses that mini- election, the Republicans take over the Senate immediately – in time for any lame duck session!

Perhaps, between 2:00 pm and 5:00 pm yesterday, all this became clear to the Democrats. Stuck with a press conference, they took the least dangerous road and hoped for a fluke win in the courts. That might explain the constant delays in the announcement. My guess is they'll try the resignation tactic in a few days and hope that flimflam works this time.

But if the courts adhere to the clear, fair and simple rules of the game: Torricelli is the Democrat candidate for the 2003 to 2009 term -- unless he dies in the next few days and the courts fashion a remedy. But the criminal courts would likely be suspicious of that --unless the death is clearly by the Torch's own hand. That's really the only way he can guarantee Democrats a viable candidate – legally. Corporeal suicide to mitigate political suicide. I wonder if Democrat consultants are suggesting it to him even now.

>>Why do Democrats have so much trouble with this?<<

One of the Goron's top advisers gave the true (and scary) answer in Florida, back in 11/00.

What matters is the "will of the people". Elections, with rules, are one way to figure out what the "will of the people" is. Polls are another. Talking to "the street" is another.

All blacks belong to the Democrats. That all of them don't record votes for the Democratic candidate is an inconvenience, but no reason to crush the "will of the people".

The RATs have decided that it is the "will of the people" of NJ that they have a RAT Senator. Nothing can be allowed to resist the will of the people-not voting, not rules, not even an emphatic rejection of the RAT candidate. Next we will be hearing about "false consciousness" accounting for deluded RAT voters who don't vote the right way (definition in Demspeak: voters who belong to the RATs-blacks, Jews, gays, Hispanics, illegals (oops!)).

This is entirely Leninist (read "What is to be done"). the elections are an inconvenience, to be fixed where necessary, to be done away with if possible.

Glad you asked?

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.