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.
Also, I think the Rats were counting on this going to the USSC, and were planning on using that as an attack on Forrester and also on other Republican Senate candidates, as well as JEB BUSH.
Forrester seemed very calm and on message this evening, and I think he has an excellent chance, especially with Lautenberg being so old. Also, I have a friend from NJ who says the prescription drug thing is a non-issue in NJ, because there is a special state fund paid for by the casinos.
The Democrat Party needs to be busted as a criminal organization under the RICO laws....
MILLIONS in free press coverage, just for having a scoundrel flunk out of the race. Unbelievable. And to your questyion about equal time: The concept of "fairness" only applies to the dims. Don't you have a copy of the rule book?
This is no holds barred full contact martial arts. And they dot care about the rule of law. Only about power.
Respectfully, a special election is not feasable as it takes months to coordinate everything from primaries to determining ballots to sending absentee ballots ... by the time a special election were held, it would be April if you started today.
Lautenberg will be on the ballot for that of course. Thus there will be two elections at once. One for the balance of the term, and one for the next term.
Respectfully, even if this were possible, there is no foundation in the law for this. The appropriate remedy would by for the NJ governor to appoint a senator to replace the Torch if the Torch resigned -- and I doubt that will happen.
Since all the ballots will have to be reprinted anyway, and since Lautenberg's name will appear in one election, is this not a special circumstance dictating that his name be on the ballot in the other?
If you reprint the ballots, you'll have to send the ballots out soon enough for all the absentee voters to receive and respond to them. Unlikely in the time frame left.
You are on the NJSC, and are fair minded. How do you rule?
I'd rule to follow the law, rather than make up new law to favor a particular political party whose problems are their own making. Had the Dems ouswted Torricelli when this garbage first came out, rather than give him a slap on the wrist for committing multiple felonies, then this whole problem would never have arisen.
By the way, if you think the Dems haven't thought about this line of argument, then you must think they are as stupid as plywood.
I don't think the Dems in congress are stupid at all. I think that they are scumbags.
They don't get their advice from brain dead talking heads on the tube.
No, they get it from "meathead" Rob Reiner and Barbra Streisand.
They get their advice from lawyers from Harvard law school that charge $400 an hour in D.C. And I am just a beat up old provincial lawyer in the boonies and I thought of it rather quickly.
I'm only a $300/hr lawyer from D.C., and I thought up just as many defenses in both law and equity rather quickly.
Since the NJ Supreme Court has chosen to step in, the only court that can review their decision is the USSC. So the 3rd Circuit can't step in there.
I actually think this is going to work to our advantage. I was very impressed with Forrester, who kept talking about national security and getting money back to NJ. Seems like he could use these same issues with Lautenberg, who is apparently not as sharp as he was a few years ago. (And who, I read, defeated Millicent Fenwick by claiming that she was TOO OLD to serve, when she was in her 60's!!)
LOL!
That's certainly a scenario out there. I was involved in a discussion of this over dinner and the issue was raised of another possibility.
It may be a last ditch shot in the dark by the Dems. It's certainly possible that they realized Toricelli was unelectable and certain to go down in November. That would mean they have nothing to lose so they took a shot in the dark in hopes of having a slight chance at hitting something.
The big question IMHO is why Toricelli waited to withdraw. He apparently could have done so only two weeks ago without any legal controversy, yet he waited. Things changed for the worse against him since then, but I don't see how Toricelli could not have expected it. It seems like the only logical thing is that the Dems saw a situation go from bad to hopeless. Therefore they tried a drastic manuever with slim, albeit better, chances to do something.
I've gotta go to bed. My eyes are tired, and they need rest for the many threads tomorrow will bring. I'll look for all the answers tomorrow.
If T resigned today, The governor could appoint someone to fill the remainder of the current term. This would not automatically put him on the ballot for the upcoming term.
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.