Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Torricelli Ballot Battle OK'd (State Supreme Court Accepts)
11 Alive ^ | 10/1/02

Posted on 10/01/2002 4:24:14 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection

The state Supreme Court decided Tuesday to hear arguments over whether Democrats can replace Sen. Robert Torricelli on the November ballot, a day after the senator abruptly dropped out of the race.

The court issued an order saying it would hear the case directly instead of waiting for a lower court to act. The high court hearing is scheduled for Wednesday morning. As a result, a hearing set for Tuesday afternoon in Middlesex County Superior Court was canceled.

The Democrats, who hold a one-seat majority in the Senate, had asked the high court to hear the case directly because of the urgency involved.

Torricelli's end to his scandal-tainted re-election campaign forced Democrats to scramble for a candidate. Democratic officials said Monday they had hoped to announce a new candidate within 48 hours.

A top choice, Rep. Robert Menendez, took himself out of the running Tuesday morning. Menendez, the fourth-ranking Democrat in House leadership, said he wants to remain in the House and continue to help Democrats fight for a majority.

Party officials also were considering such possibilities as former Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Bill Bradley and current House members Frank Pallone and Rob Andrews, according to sources in Washington and New Jersey.

Pallone said Tuesday he would consider replacing Torricelli, but added that he had not been asked. Lautenberg said he would "seriously consider serving again if asked." An associate said it was unlikely Bradley would accept. Calls to other potential candidates were not immediately returned.

Angelo Genova, a lawyer for state Democrats, said party officials would meet Wednesday night to decide on a replacement. Genova also said a judge has signed a temporary restraining order barring clerks from making or mailing any ballots until the case is decided.

Torricelli dropped out after his campaign was severely damaged by allegations he improperly accepted expensive gifts from a campaign contributor. The senator was admonished over the summer by the Senate ethics committee.

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. But only 35 days remained as of Tuesday.

Republicans vowed to block any attempt to replace Torricelli this close to the election.

"In 36 days, decency, fairness and the rule of the law will trump this desperate attempt to retain power," said Douglas Forrester, Torricelli's GOP opponent. "The people of New Jersey have had enough of playing politics with the fundamental tenets of democracy."

Democratic Gov. James E. McGreevey said that placing a new candidate on the ballot would be a fair way to resolve the issue and would "give New Jersey voters a chance to speak."

The Democrats are defending their one-seat advantage in the Senate in midterm elections.

"I will not be responsible for the loss of the Democratic majority of the United States Senate. I will not let it happen. There is just too much at issue," Torricelli, 51, said in abandoning his re-election bid Monday.

Torricelli was elected in 1996 to replace Bradley, the former basketball star who later ran for the 2000 Democratic presidential nomination and lost to Al Gore. Torricelli and Lautenberg, who retired in 2000, served together in the Senate but often were at loggerheads.

Torricelli was always a powerhouse fund-raiser: He helped raise more than $100 million for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee as its chairman in the last election cycle. He was awarded a seat on the powerful Senate Finance Committee, and helped defend President Clinton against impeachment.

But Torricelli's career began to unravel as the public learned more about his relationship with businessman David Chang, who told investigators he gave the senator Italian suits and an $8,100 Rolex watch, among other 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.

Torricelli denied any illegality or violations of Senate rules but was admonished anyway. Federal prosecutors investigated but decided against filing charges against him.

The incumbent launched an effort to apologize to the state's voters, but last week a memo in the Chang case was released publicly. In it, prosecutors said Chang's efforts had "greatly advanced" the investigation into the senator's actions, despite Chang's "credibility problems."

Forrester, a wealthy businessman, has harped on ethics throughout the campaign and it worked: A poll released over the weekend showed him with a 13-point lead over Torricelli. The same poll showed the incumbent with a 14-point lead in June.

"I pride myself on a strong voice. My colleagues in the Senate would tell you that it is often heard above all others but it doesn't matter if you can't be heard at all in a campaign," Torricelli said. "I'm in a debate with a faceless foe that I cannot find, minds I cannot change."

Tuesday morning, Forrester said Torricelli's move "means we can talk about the issues." In an interview on WABC-TV in New York, Forrester said, "Whenever I tried to bring up another issue like the environment, it somehow always got back to being about" Torricelli.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: statesupremecourt; torricelliballot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-120 next last
What comparisons, if any, are there to Katherine Harris' apparent mistake in not resigning her position in a timely manner to qualify for the election. If I remember correctly, the judge did rule that she did break the law, but forgave the offense because of the fact that the voters approved of her by voting for her in the primary.
81 posted on 10/01/2002 6:14:58 PM PDT by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions; copycat; Don Munn; Rome2000; tomahawk
As bluntly as possible, there are rules in New Jersey which the Leftists don't feel apply to them. Since their focus on politics and what is best for America is superior nothing should stand in their way to accomplish overall objectives, even the law.
82 posted on 10/01/2002 6:15:56 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Fuzz
You remember incorrectly. The judge ruled in her favor because the remedy for failure to follow the law was included within the statute. (No resignation letter= immediate, irrevocable removal from office.)
The judge forgave nothing- he dismissed the case as without merit.
83 posted on 10/01/2002 6:20:59 PM PDT by Goldwater Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Democratic Gov. James E. McGreevey said that placing a new candidate on the ballot would be a fair way to resolve the issue and would "give New Jersey voters a chance to speak."
We called it!
I am DISGUSTED but NOT surprised.
84 posted on 10/01/2002 6:22:29 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Citizen Reporter; Howlin
It's Lautenberg and if he campaigns as he just did in his acceptance speech I don't foresee a problem. He stuttered throughout and doesn't seem up on the issues (i.e. mentioning 'the pollution thing and drug thing") or frankly what Forrester truly stands for.
85 posted on 10/01/2002 6:24:10 PM PDT by StarFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Somebody ought to ask "Just why was the state law wriiten and why was 51 days specified ?"


It is also going to depend which way the media pressure will be directed ( Probably in favor of the dems)
86 posted on 10/01/2002 6:26:58 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Not kidding. It was on Fox News at around 7:30. They said that 13 counties have already printed ballots and that 5 counties have already mailed them out. I'm looking for a full article on this to post.
87 posted on 10/01/2002 6:27:23 PM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Goldwater Girl
Ah. I think the thing that confused me, was the part in the law where it stated something like the person who didn't comply had to be removed from the ballot. With the automatic resignation, I guess it would not be possible to actually not comply then and that looks like a useless phrase that could cause some confusion.
88 posted on 10/01/2002 6:28:46 PM PDT by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: AJFavish
That would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause because there is no reasonable justification for that unequal treatment.

How about the argument the GOP has expended funding in campaigning against Torrecilli

They going to be reimbursed ?
89 posted on 10/01/2002 6:31:15 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Torricelli was always a powerhouse fund-raiser:

Isn't that what got him in this mess?
90 posted on 10/01/2002 6:31:22 PM PDT by BJClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fuzz
Well, that and the timing of the ruling. (I kind of digressed there)
91 posted on 10/01/2002 6:31:43 PM PDT by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: StarFan
I'm just wondering if naming Lautenberg is even legal at this time. The Dems act like they've already won in the courts. If we ever ran into this ( although I can't see how) we would have our replacement standing by and name him after the court's decision, not before.
92 posted on 10/01/2002 6:36:34 PM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: GOPrincess
I have a question and am wondering if anyone can clarify this issue: today Mark Levin (via Sean Hannity) said this issue has to stop with the NJSC, it's a state issue that cannot be decided by SCOTUS. Yet it seems to me that if it's an election for a Federal position, the U.S. Senate, SCOTUS could ultimately have a say in the matter.

I have a lot of respect for Levin, but lawyers are like economists. Ask ten of them a question and you get eleven answers.

Of course the Forrester camp can go to the SCOTUS if the NJ Supremes rule against them. However, the SCOTUS may say they have no jurisdiction. I doubt that.

There are a number of issues that could be brought, equal protection being one of them.

93 posted on 10/01/2002 6:37:05 PM PDT by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Democrat politicians trying to steal an election before it even happens. I am reminded of a Mrs. Clinton quote I read in the September 2002 issue of the Limbaugh Letter as follows:

"It's important to hae core principles and values, but if you're going to be active in policy and politics you have to be a realist."

I'm thinking she really meant you have to be a cheater.

94 posted on 10/01/2002 6:39:37 PM PDT by harpo11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fuzz
It doesn't say "had to be removed from the ballot"- it says "MAY be removed by a circuit judge".
Judicial oversight is in case of fraud or collusion- not useless or confusing at all. Just not applicable to Katherine Harris.


95 posted on 10/01/2002 6:46:37 PM PDT by Goldwater Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast; All
You are so right there is no new tone in Washington -- the RATs will not permit it.

What we do is use this as an example of the rot from inside the DemocRAT Party. DemocRATs like Carl Albert from here in Oklahoma and others in days gone by that used to fight tooth and nail on the floor of the Senate and then go out to eat with the loyal opposition do not exist anymore.

We now have the Clinton DemocRAT Party led by their lapdog Mcauliffe with Begala and Carville as their pit bulls. I now have adopted a new vocabulary:

Clinton DemocRAT Party
Daschle/Clinton Senate DemocRATs
Gephardt/Clinton House DemocRATs
Clinton DemocRAT National Committee

For anyone living here in flyover Country the name clinton in front of anything to do with the DemocRATs is not going to draw a favorable response. Let's use it at every opportunity when you refer to our Republican candidates as being up against the clinton/daschle Senate DemocRAT or any number of combinations. Don't let the word "DemocRAT" go without a clinton in front of it. They have hijacked the DemocRAT Party and let's tie them to it once and for all.

Rule of Law does not apply to any Clinton DemocRAT as they have just put on display for us once again with their absolute disregard for rules or the law.

Remind everyone you know to get out and vote Republican and send the clintons a message!





96 posted on 10/01/2002 7:10:34 PM PDT by PhiKapMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Vidalia
How much is a good-ass Rolex .To lose an election over a half-assed rolex-so many regrets.
97 posted on 10/01/2002 7:11:56 PM PDT by fatima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Once again, our military serving overseas will be screwed out of their vote.
(The absentee ballots have already been sent.)

Perhaps the Rats will ask the court to count any military votes for Torch as a vote for his substitute candidate.

98 posted on 10/01/2002 7:13:58 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
"These clowns make the Florida supremes look distinguished."

The New Jersey Supremes look like the second rate English Department at a third rate state college.

99 posted on 10/01/2002 7:22:49 PM PDT by billorites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Right_in_Virginia
How can the court change the candidates now?

I'm sorry, but tonight I'm in a rotten mood. IMHO, the NJ court will do whatever the crooked NJ dems tell them to do, pure and simple.

I'm in a bad mood because we're seeing the total demise of the rule of law. I believe in principles, rules, and a level playing field. Tonight I see that's a foolish fantasy.

100 posted on 10/01/2002 7:29:15 PM PDT by Humidston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-120 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson