Posted on 10/01/2002 6:03:54 PM PDT by eddie willers
By JOHN P. McALPIN, Associated Press Writer
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - Desperate to keep their single-seat majority in the Senate, Democrats have chosen former Sen. Frank Lautenberg to replace scandal-tainted Sen. Robert Torricelli ( news, bio, voting record) on the November ballot, The Associated Press has learned.
|
The decision was reached Tuesday evening after a full day of meetings among top state Democrats, according to a party source familiar with the discussions.
An announcement was expected later Tuesday.
Earlier in the day, the 78-year-old Lautenberg indicated he was ready to run.
"I was there (in the Senate) 18 years, and I enjoyed virtually every day," Lautenberg said in a telephone interview from his car as he headed to the governor's mansion for meetings with top state Democrats. "I didn't like raising the money, but I'm not going to mind it as much this time, because it's kind of fresh start."
Whether Lautenberg's name will actually appear the ballot with Republican Douglas Forrester will be decided in court. Republicans say it is too late to replace Torricelli, who dropped out Monday as his poll numbers continued to fall amid questions about his ethics.
The New Jersey Supreme Court will hear arguments on the case Wednesday.
Sen. William Frist, chairman of the Senate GOP campaign committee, said Republicans would consider an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court ( news - web sites) if the New Jersey court rules in favor of the Democrats.
"This is a desperate grasp at getting around the law and the people of New Jersey are tired of having their leaders go around the law," he said.
Frist said some absentee ballots have already been cast and that other ballots have been distributed to military personnel overseas; the New Jersey Association of County Clerks said about 1,600 absentee ballots were mailed out.
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" in the election.
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.
Few, however, expected a court fight five weeks before Election Day.
"This is one for the books," said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. "It will long be remembered."
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. Torricelli missed the deadline by 15 days.
However, Democrats say decades of state court decisions put voters' rights above filing deadlines and other technical guidelines.
Attorney General David Samson argued in papers filed with the court Tuesday that the justices have the power to relax the deadline to withdraw and allow Democrats to post another candidate. Samson, who was appointed to his job by Democratic Gov. James E. McGreevey, said election laws have long been interpreted liberally to allow voters every opportunity.
Legal experts agreed.
"In a substantial number of those cases, the courts have ruled on the side of being inclusive," said Richard Perr, an election law professor at Rutgers University Law School.
Six of the seven justices on the state's highest court were appointed by a former Republican governor.
Lautenberg's selection as the potential Democratic savior is replete with irony. He and Torricelli feuded openly while serving together.
"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."
Lautenberg is a supporter of abortion rights and staunch opponent of the death penalty. He brings two major strengths to the difficult bid: statewide name recognition and a huge reserve of personal wealth he can use in the campaign. Also, unlike the House members who were also considered as substitute candidates, he does not have anything to lose by running and losing.
Lautenberg was a business executive before serving three terms in the Senate, deciding against a re-election bid in 2000. He counted among his accomplishments a law requiring companies to disclose chemicals they release into the environment, a law banning smoking on domestic flights and a law banning gun ownership by those convicted of domestic violence.
My blood pressure must be sky-high, Im going to stroke-out or become an alcoholic before this election is over.
By the way, in case no one has mentioned it Lautenberg or McGreevey (couldn't hear which one because I was in the other room) talked about how important it was that the Rats win to preserve "a woman's right to choose and the sanctity of the environment."
I swear they are some kind of cult. Infant- sacrificing tree-worhippers.
What?
yes, he said, "unfettered right to choose". The old geezer mangled his soundbites! He stuttered, stammered.....I don't think Forrester will have much trouble with him.
I know it's a long shot....but it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the New Jersey judges could do the right thing and force Toricelli to keep his name on the ballot. Ok ok, I'm dreaming.
But with Hawaii democrats fighting to run a dead woman, nothing should shock us.
Hmmm, has nobody told AP that the only case on point for this issue is directly contrary?
That's the spirit. God bless you!!!
"In Jersey, anything's legal, as long as you don't get caught."
Their primary election.
Actually, the precedent established over the past 225 years is the other way. The court cannot modify a statute. It must enforce the statute unless the statute is too vague to interpret or is unconstitutional.
This very same court visited this very same statute last year and did not find anything vague or unconstitutional about it. They actually said that the legislative intent was to not permit a change after the deadline date.
If this court votes in favor of the Dems it loses all credibility.
After the Dems petition the NJSC, they will be on record - the President should condemn this power grab and highlight it as a national issue.
Any Dem that argues in favor of this outrageous ploy should be called to the carpet. Make 'em feel the heat. We shouldn't be acting like this is a reasonable debate about differences of opinion. There is no opinion here! The law is very clear. There should be no debate. Any judge worth their salt would laugh this bunch out of the courtroom. No grounds whatsoever!
This is like something out of a one-party totalitarian state...
Their real plan:
1) They know that the Torch will lose. So they have no downside.
2) Maybe they get Lautenberg as a replacement, and maybe he'll win.
3) Better yet for them, the law is followed, and they get no replacement. They will of course lose this one seat, which they'd lose anyway. Then they'll whine a lot about how unfair it (i.e., following the law) is. The press will of course take the side of "fairness."
Then all the idiots in the middle -- the swing voters who actually decide all close elections will feel sorry (or outraged) for them. And the Dems will win other seats in the Senate and House which they would lose otherwise.
In a way, it's like all the screaming in Florida. The question is whether anti-legal screams for "fairness" will fool more people than they will appall. As in Florida, they're betting on enough swing voters being idiots, and on motivating their base to come out for payback elsewhere.
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature....
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
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.