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]

My above posts were in regardes to organization and who the majority party would be, not in regardes to passing legislation.

Jeffords caucusses with the dems, thus the RATS would still be the majority party by a vote of 50-49. Unless Zell Miller voted with the GOP.

[Phantom Lord]

Cheney would never get to vote because the organizational vote would be 50-49, Rats win.

[js1138]

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.

I'll be interesting to see what happens if the court gives the dems what they asked for. My guess is the party has a plan and the fix is in. This may be a briar patch manuver, designed to make the dems into victims and rack up a lot of free face time on TV.

I look forward to seeing how they'll handle reprinting all the absentee ballots. I suspect there's a reason why the cut-off was extended from 34 days to 48 (or is it 54).

[rstevens]

This only applies in years that the senate seat is not on the ballot for relection. If, as in this case, the senate seat is up for election, then the election will serve to seat a new senator. What you are failing to see here, is that Torricelli senate seat and term is up for re-election and is not, nor can it be, considered vacant. Even if he the torch resignes before he actually completes the term. When a senator seat is elected on Nov 5th. That person is considered to be the senator elect, but does not take office until Jan 21st of next year.

Hope this clears this up. In no way can a State Governor change the constitutional mandate to elect senators every six years. In no way can a senate seat ever to extended in time for a period that would exceed a six year term.

Come next Nov 5th the state of NJ will elect a new or incumbent senator, how they resolve replacing a name on the ballot, however, falls under state laws.

If NJ is foolish enough to allow their laws to be changed to appease this flagrant fraud, then it will set a precedent for the whole country.

All elections hereafter will avail a losing candidate to resign to allow the party with a better chance with another candidate. This will tend to invalidate the purpose of a primary election.

Of course this all can be circumvented during a declared national emergency.

[TBP]

There is actually a bit of interesting history to the unusual New York court structure. The ?Supreme Court used to be the highest, but it made a ruling many years ago (early in the last century runs in my mind) which the Legislature didn't like, so it simply "demoted" the Supreme Court and "promoted" the Court of Appeals.

[cinFLA]

Oh, please. Gray Davis can't get above the low 40s in the polls, yet everyone here is just wringing their hands that Simon can't win. Gimme a break. Sure, Simon's made mistakes, yet he's still in a position to win. It's that simple.

Davis' negatives are higher than Simon's. Simon just needs a little something to push him over the top. Unfortunately, Davis and his millions are flooding the airwaves.

[rstevens]

Should have also pointed out that if Torch resigns before the election, whoever is elected to that seat, will immediately go to the senate. This is the way the vacancy problem is resolved in these kind of situations.

The Senate seat in MO is a case in point, if Talent wins the election, he will be immediately seated.

[Eva]

I was watching FOX last night and one thing that struck me was the lack of vitriolic comments from the Republicans (outside of Jersey). My husband couldn't believe that they seemed reluctant to say one bad word about Torrecelli. Then I remembered an earlier comment by a New Jersey reporter on O'Reilly, he said that the Torch was a deal maker and that he had most likely made deals with the Senate to remain in office. That deal was most likely his support of the Bush tax cuts. There is so much going on here, that it is hard to follow.

[Brian Allen]

<< What's a Democrat to do in the face of all this bad news? >>

E, S & D!

[Mudboy Slim]

"The public interest, and our two-party system, will be best served by permitting (the Democratic Party) to fill the vacancy that has been created."

BAH-Loney!! The vacancy that has been created was created by the DemonRATS themselves...they know the rules and they knew how corrupt their candidate was, but the figgered the NooJoisey Voters were stupider than they turned out to be!!

GOP ought to fight this vociferously...otherwise, we'll just be adding to the general impression out there that rules apply only to Pubbies and never the RATS!!

FReegards...MUD

[TC Rider]

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.

My point was they made huge efforts to keep the truth from coming out.

[Plebeian]

I have a sneaky suspicion that this is going to be another rallying cry from the Dems if this goes to SCOTUS, and they find in favor of Forrester....leaving him the next NJ senator...They'll be back on the same tired story that the Supreme Court is now selecting our elected officials.
It'll be Bush/Gore all over again.

Call it a conspiracy theory...or whatever. I don't put it past those SOB's to try something that diabolical.

Watch this closely...I hope I just have an over-active imagination.

[CA Conservative]

What everyone seems to be forgetting is that NJ law is not the controlling authority here - the US Constitution is. The Constitution establishes that each term of a senator shall be for 6 years. Since the governor can only appoint someone to fulfill the Torch's unexpired term, such an appointment would only be until January of next year.

For everyone who is afraid that the Torch will resign and McGreevy will appoint someone to serve for the next two years, it ain't gonna happen. If they try that, SCOTUS will dope-slap them upside the head.

The only question of NJ law is whether or not they can place someone else on the November ballot this late in the game. There WILL be an election for senator in NJ on November 5th, and the winner of that election will serve for the next 6 years.

[Hildy]

Except CONVENIENTLY three weeks ago the Dem. Governor appointed a Dem ally. Now the Supreme Court is a Democratic ruled one. Coincidence? I think not.

[San Jacinto]

Under no circumstances will there be a special election -- not even if Torch resigns. This is so because his term is up in Jan. and the election to fill the post happens this November. The NJ statute which has been posted and which talks about a special election would apply if Torch's term was up in 2004 and he resigned from office in 2002, but that is not the case. No state law can extend the term of a senate seat, so the current term ends in January -- whether Torch resigns or not.

Now, if he does resign, then the gov. appoints his replacement -- but the replacement only serves til Jan, 2003. I think this stuff about the Gov. could put off the election for a year or whatever was either wishful thinking by the Dems or, more likely, propaganda by them to make their position in court seem more palatable. They'll say, "We don't want to postpone the election, we just want it to be FAIR."

[Political Junkie Too]

"New Jersey voters would be deprived of the opportunity to make a choice between the two major political parties, an opportunity which is paramount under our election laws," says the lawsuit. "The public interest, and our two-party system, will be best served by permitting (the Democratic Party) to fill the vacancy that has been created."

This kind of reasoning is like saying that a candidate who murders his wife should get the sympathy vote because he's a widow.

New Jerseyians are not deprived of a Democrat candidate -- they made their choice and the Democrats can't stand that they lost.

-PJ

[Southack]

"New Jersey voters would be deprived of the opportunity to make a choice between the two major political parties, an opportunity which is paramount under our election laws," says the lawsuit."

And for making that lie, the attorneys responsible for filing that claim should be disbarred.

Voters aren't "deprived" of writing in a Democrat's name when they vote, after all, contrary to the lie submitted to the court (above). That's how Strom Thurmond won one of his elections, by write in. If it's good-enough for a Republican to win, then it's good enough for Democrats.

[CharacterCounts]

There seems to be a lot of confusion over the effect of a resignation and special election. But I think the following would apply:

The Constitution limits the term of a Senator to six years.

Nothing in the Constitution permits the Governer to extend that term.

If Torricelli resigned today or next month, The Governor could appoint someone to complete the current term.

If it were too late in the current term to hold a special election to vote for a candidate to complete the current term. the term would simply expire on January 1, 2003.

The election on November 6 is for the new term and the Governor has no authority to place anyone on that ballot for the new term.

[CharacterCounts]

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

The Dems know they are going to lose in court. Any other result would be a legal absurdity.They also know that Forrester will probably win even if they get a new candidate on the ballot.

There game plan, I beleive, is to confuse the issue enough so that they can attempt to refuse to seat Forrester on January 1, 2003. Tie the issue up in courts as long as they can and retain the majority as long as they can.

[Political Junkie Too]

There game plan, I beleive, is to confuse the issue enough so that they can attempt to refuse to seat Forrester on January 1, 2003.

They would need a majority in the Senate to attempt this, right? If they lose enough seats, then this is moot.

-PJ