FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Posted on 10/02/2002 9:44:12 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Democrats fighting a crucial battle for control of the U.S. Senate told the state's top court Wednesday it isn't too late to replace Sen. Robert Torricelli's name on the ballot.
Republicans argued that state law is clear: Candidates cannot be replaced on the ballot if they drop out within 51 days of the election. Torricelli dropped out with 36 days left.
Leaving Torricelli's name on the Nov. 5 ballot would only confuse voters, said Angelo J. Genova, a lawyer for state Democrats.
"I think he has withdrawn, I think he has effectively created a vacancy by his withdrawal. He's not a candidate. He's not a candidate for public office," Genova told the state Supreme Court.
Genova said the intent of the 51-day rule is meant solely to ensure there is enough time to prepare ballots. Only about 1,600 ballots have been mailed, and there's enough time to make new ones, Genova said.
But Peter Sheridan, attorney for Republican candidate Douglas Forrester, said: "I believe the statute should be enforced as it presently reads. We don't believe there are any extraordinary circumstances."
State Attorney General David Samson told the justices -- four Democrats, two Republicans and one independent -- that replacing Torricelli on the ballot would be inconvenient and costly but "administratively feasible."
John Carbone, an attorney representing the state's 21 county clerks, said any change would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
"If we go beyond Wednesday of next week, Tuesday of next week, it's not going to be doable no matter how deep the pockets," Carbone said.
The hearing came a day after Democratic leaders named 78-year-old former Sen. Frank Lautenberg as their preference to replace Torricelli, who dropped out of the race amid ethics questions.
The seven justices have agreed to let attorneys sidestep lower courts and argue on whether Democrats can switch names on the ballot.
Republicans say adding Lautenberg's name would allow parties to replace candidates as elections neared simply because they feared losing.
Democrats say decades of state court decisions put voters' rights above filing deadlines and other technical guidelines.
Samson, who was appointed by Democratic Gov. Jim McGreevey, said in written arguments Tuesday that the justices have the power to relax the deadline and allow Democrats to post another candidate so voters would have more choice.
Some legal experts agreed.
"It's almost as if the arguing parties -- the Democrats and Republicans -- are irrelevant in the legal analysis," said Richard Perr, an election law professor at Rutgers University Law School. "The focus is on the voters right to cast a meaningful vote and they can't do that if only one name is on the ballot."
Although Democrats have a majority on the state's highest court, six of the seven justices were appointed by former Republican Gov. Christie Whitman, who maintained a long tradition among New Jersey governors of keeping the court politically balanced.
McGreevey chose Lautenberg to replace Torricelli after a full day of meetings with top state Democrats. He said Lautenberg's legislative record and stand on social issues followed the party line.
Lautenberg, who retired two years ago, said he was ready to run.
"None of the enthusiasm has died," Lautenberg said. "I will fight just as hard. I am just as energized."
"When it comes to Mr. Lautenberg, the voters are going to say, 'Been there, done that,"' said Bill Pascoe, Forrester's campaign manager. "It's time for new leadership."
The Democrats are defending their one-seat advantage in the Senate in midterm elections. Torricelli's re-election bid capsized when a poll put him down 13 points after months of news about illegal campaign donations and improper gifts.
Sen. William Frist, chairman of the Senate GOP campaign committee, said Republicans would consider appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court if the New Jersey court rules in favor of Democrats.
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."
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.
Businessman David Chang said he gave Torricelli expensive gifts in return for Torricelli's intervention in business deals in North and South Korea.
Seven people pleaded guilty to making illegal donations to Torricelli's campaign in 1996. Federal prosecutors investigated Torricelli but decided not to file charges against him.
Torricelli said he had not done everything he was accused of doing. He apologized to voters in a television commercial, but the damage was already done.
Lautenberg is a supporter of abortion rights and staunch opponent of the death penalty. The former business executive brings two major strengths to the bid: statewide name recognition and a huge reserve of personal wealth.
He and Torricelli feuded openly while serving together, but Lautenberg said he wasn't dwelling on the irony.
"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."
| See this thread:
|
||||||
| Democrats were 'terrified' at Torricelli reelection bid |
THINK??? This is evidence before a surpreme court?
Not likely. What they would do is put in the back up quarter back and have him play. If in fact the backup quarterback was an ageing former big star, it could happen in a heart beat. Of couse once the game was won, the starting quarter back would stil be the new young quarterback. He would be starting future games. The old backup was just that and old backup brought in to win the game not be the future starting quarterback.
That is my estimation of what is happening in New Jersey.
There is no way that the Torch was going to just quit. He was down 5 touch downs but if they tried to kick him off the team he would remind them it was not football Only he could decide to bring in the old sub.
The question is what did they offer the Torch to quit. Think of this way. You have only a 20 percent chance of a poltical life if you stay in. You have 0 percent chance of a political life if you take yourself out.There is no way any politican I have ever met would take them selves out under those conditions. They would try throwing a few hail mary's. But give up? Never!!!!
They had to give the torch something. Two Rolexes, a sack of money, and a time piece to be named later would not do it. That is why when I heard that the Torch had taken himself out, I immediately predicted that Lautenberg would replace him. I predicted the Supreme court would put Lautenberg on the ballot. Those now look like sure bets.
If Lautenberg wins then in a year the old quarter back will develop a very bad knee injury and they will put the Torch back in.
In a year the media can change totally the public perception of a person. Soon the leftists in New York and New Jersey TV will suffer remorse for the minor little things that the torch did and that they made a big deal about.
When the "knee" problems hit old Frank there will be tons of specuation about the Torch as a replaceement. The media will turn the torchs problems into an unfair attack on a good man by evil Republicans. The torchs problems will be transformed before your very eyes from corruption to unfair politcal attacks by E-VIL Republicans.
People who think the Torch can't be politically repaired in a year, believed that bill clinton could not survive Monica.
With in a year, polls will show that 75 percent of the voters of New Jersey are certain that the Torch was just the victim of blood thirsty Republicans out to take their champion down. He will win a special election to finish his term.
Mr. Perr, you are an @sshole.
First of all, there are multiple names on the ballot even if Torricelli's disappeared tomorrow. And if having multiple names on a ballot is so important, then what right does the Democratic Party have to name a replacement candidate without allowing anyone to vote in a primary?
"John Carbone, an attorney representing the state's 21 county clerks, said any change would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. "If we go beyond Wednesday of next week, Tuesday of next week, it's not going to be doable no matter how deep the pockets," Carbone said."
Is this a legitimate question? How do we know the county clerks aren't biased for Torricelli, and if it were Forrester dropping out, they'd say they couldn't meet the deadline?
The time for clerks to speak up was when the legislature passed the 51 day cutoff. If the clerks thought they could do it in 33 days, they should have said so then.
It supports what I suspected about Democrats in New Jersey. They were always uncomfortable with Torricelli and his corrupt politics! It is the Big Names in the Party that are responsible for the corruption of the Democratic Party ... Kennedy, the Clintons, Dash-Hole, Geb-phart and on and on.
Also significant is the fact that the media caused the destruction of the Torch .... and the NBC special report with an interview with Chang was important!
I think we will see the NJ Supremes handle this case in an honorable manner. And I think the voters in NJ will vote in an honorable way....
Personally, I think voters are ready to reject the destructive antics of the Clintons, Dash-hole, Kennedy and Geb-phart!
______
* ping * and BTT
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.