Now that Torricelli's out ...

[Suzanne F]

I figured it would be better to go directly to the source.

So: what do the folks in New Jersey think will/might/should happen now that Torricelli has withdrawn? Will the State Supreme Court allow Lautenberg on the ballot? Will Forrester finally develop a position on anything? C'mon, I know you guys and gals think about other things besides food (... and booze ... and drugs ... and the opposite sex ... and rock 'n' roll. At least, I hope you do! )

[Dave the Cook]

I'm not from NJ, but we all have a stake here--how about filling us in?

How does the NJ Supreme court stack up politically? Who appointed the justices? Or are they elected? Based on what I've heard, it doesn't sound like there's a loophole for the 45-day rule.

[Lreda]

No loophole. Torricelli resigned after the 51 day limit. Lautenberg will not be on the ballot. He will have to be written in. Good ridance Torch

[Rail Paul]

The NJ Supreme Court is notorious for creating new law (Abbott districts, Mount Laurel obligations, death penalty stays, town budgets, pre-teen abortion rights, etc) based on thin substance in legislative actions.

This Court is generally perceived as being both activist and generally liberal. Judges are appointed by the governor (as are all judges in NJ).

That said, I think they'll rule in favor of the Democrats. The lead argument, as of this morning, is the Democratic voters will be deprived of a choice if they're confronted with a candidate who won't campaign, and declines to serve.

Stupid argument, but they've bought far worse and imposed them on the taxpayers.

[Miguel Gierbolini]

I am not in New Jersey but this is what will happen:

1. The Supreme Court of New Jersey will permit Lautenberg on the Ballot.

2. He will win.

3. Democrats will maintain a majority in the U.S. Senate.

4. Lautenberg, 78, will retire soon after taking office.

5. New Jersey's democratic governor will appoint someone, (it could be Torricelli) to substitute Lautenberg for the remainder of the six year term.

6. Torricelli or whomever Lautenberg's substitute is will be investigated by the Senate Ethics committee.

7. And so on.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I'm not sure why anyone would say that Democratic voters being deprived of a candidate is a bad argument. Especially considering the arbitrary nature of the 51 day law (the legislature could have made it any number of days they wanted to.) Aren't they also going to argue that that law applies if they want to make a switch, as oppossed to when they have to? What is the harm to the Republican candidate if the Dems are allowed to put Lautenberg on the ballot? They might lose an election they otherwise thought they were going to win? That doesn't sound like harm to me. It sounds like the harm to voters is greater then the harm to the Republican candidate. Of course the court can rule in favor of the Republicans as well.

[Ron Johnson]

This Court is generally perceived as being both activist and generally liberal.

If thats true, it might be the only one left.

[stefanyb]

The whole Torricelli affair is just another example of the Republican Party doing what they do best- witch hunts. The Democrats try but can never compete in the game of character assassination. Just like the impeachment of Clinton. Just like what precipitated Watergate. The sad fact is they are all a sorry lot of nasty and vicious self-interested hypocrites.

[ajay]

I agree with Rail Paul's analysis of what the NJ Supreme COurt will do, but it seems to me that the Forrester campaign will likely appeal to the Supreme US Court, or start a parallel action in Federal Court probably on equal protection grounds. He may have more luck there in the light of Bush v Gore.

Another intersting (but unlikely) scenario: the democrats retain fifty seats, but Jean Carnahan looses. Talent could then be sworn in immediatley, and with the VP's tie braking vote, the GOP can reorgainze the Senate, and the rules committee can declare Forrester the winner of the NJ election thus stripping the DEms of their majority. This would be largely unfeasible if it is possible to fillibuster the organizing resolution--I don't know if it is priviledged or not. But afterward, the vote on the election requires a majority, and I believe such a vote cannot be filibustered.

[NewYorkTexan]

I question the argument that the voters will be deprived a choice. The only reason that the voters would be deprived a choice is because the democratic candidate forfeited the election. Torch saw he was going to lose and simply gave up. If he really had the Democratic Party’s best interest driving his decision, why did he wait for the 51 day threshold to pass? He could have resigned from the Senate, which would have placed the Democratic Party in a stronger position to put another candidate on the ballot.

It seems to me that he brought this on the party and the attempt to put Laundenburg on the ballot is making a mockery of the election laws and a symbol of the arrogance by the Democratic Party in New Jersey.

[hollywood]

If write ins are a possibility, they can be done on election day. Obviously, there is a clear advantage to being on the ballot as opposed to being a write in candidate, but changing candidates seems to be similar. What was the recent election (in Missouri, I think) where the candidate died and his wife was permitted to run and won? Sounds a little analagous. Torch is "dead," so someone else gets subbed in. If this goes to the US Supreme Court, what would be the standard for upholding the law, any rational basis? What's the rational basis here? The cost of reprinting ballots vs. having a meaningful election. Clearly, the Republicans will pull out the procedural technicalities playbook, but in order to avoid looking like total patsies, I think the Supremes will have to let the Dems win. Of course, they can wait till after the election to rule to see if a ruling is necessary.

[Helena Robinson]

The NY Times web site had a wire service article listing the members of the NJ Supreme Court and their political affiliations. I believe most are Democrats, one is an Independent. Interestingly enough, most are Whitman appointmees. However, the court is known for not voting strictly along party lines.

As this case is being heard as I write this, you'll most likely see some or all of the following (if not more):

1. Reference to a 1952 ruling that permitted a replacement (Democratic) candidate in a county election (Hudson, of all places. It's known as Jersey's answer to Chicago ) when the candidate passed away one day after the 51-day deadline. The ruling stated that election law shouldn't be held above the opportunity of voters to exercise their franchise.

2. In a scenario I'm surprised didn't happen (but still could in this strange state), Torch could resign, leaving McGreevey to appoint someone to complete his term. Along the way, the guv could also cancel the Nov. 5 election for Senate and call a special election at a later date.

3. On the other side of the aisle, there's the matter of a recent Republican primary (wither for Senate of Governor, can't recall which offhand) that was delayed a few weeks, but the specifics suddenly escape me, sorry.

Curiouser and curiouser, eh?

[Rosie]

I find it interesting that a few days ago Forrester was calling for Torricelli's resignation. Now that he has resigned Forrester is saying he shouldn't be allowed to resign. Forrester is a very conservative man who is against abortion and pro guns. By keeping the election focused on Torricelli's problems he can keep quiet about his beliefs.

[ajay]

Hollywood,

Your analogy to the 2000 senate election in Missouri is not relevant here. Since Mel Carnahan, the candidate for the Senate seat, died after the time limit for changing the ballot, his name continued on the ballot. In effect, the good people of Missouri elected a dead man rather than return John Ashcroft to the Senate

The sitting governor of Missouri promised to apoint Mel's wife, Jean, to the seat if Mel was elected. For obvious reasons, such a strategy would not be fruitful here.

[Rail Paul]

I question the argument that the voters will be deprived a choice.  The only reason that the voters would be deprived a choice is because the democratic candidate forfeited the election.  Torch saw he was going to lose and simply gave up.

With respect to this, and Steve Plotnicki's opposite argument, one of the spin-meisters last night mentioned the problem of previously known self-inflicted problem (like Torricelli's) compared to a serious heart attack, etc which would incapacitate the legislator.

If any party could substitute a new candidate when the going got rough, what's the purpose of holding a primary election? The Democrats held one, selected Torricelli, and sent him forth, knowing he was damaged goods. Incidentally, the whole investigation, and Chang's conviction was done by the Clinton administration. It's been underway since 1997, Bush inherited it.

(Hey! He may be damaged goods, but he's OUR damaged goods. My trade association just sent me a notice this morning that my $1,000 contribution to his campaign still qualifies me for their circle of honor credit)

[hollywood]

Hollywood,

Your analogy to the 2000 senate election in Missouri is not relevant here.  Since Mel Carnahan, the candidate for the Senate seat, died after the time limit for changing the ballot, his name continued on the ballot.  In effect, the good people of Missouri elected a dead man rather than return John Ashcroft to the Senate

The sitting governor of Missouri promised to apoint Mel's wife, Jean, to the seat if Mel was elected.  For obvious reasons, such a strategy would not be fruitful here.

I see your point but since everyone knew that a vote for the deceased was a vote for the wife, what's the difference in changing the ballot? In effect, the gov changed the ballot.

[hollywood]

If any party could substitute a new candidate when the going got rough, what's the purpose of holding a primary election? The Democrats held one, selected Torricelli, and sent him forth, knowing he was damaged goods.

I seem to recall the Dems subbing in Sergeant Shriver when the shit hit the fan for Eagleton. In fact, that raises the point that except for incumbents the Veep nominee is not on the primary ballot but obviously gets added to the Presidential election ballot. So, I'm not sure that the primary ballot is relevant. I'll bet Bush wishes he could sub in someone for Simon in California. Looks like we are going to continue in the tradition of Bush-Gore in which any significant election becomes a lawsuit for the courts to decide.

[ngatti]

With respect to this, and Steve Plotnicki's opposite argument, one of the spin-meisters last night mentioned the problem of  previously known self-inflicted problem (like Torricelli's) compared to a serious heart attack, etc which would incapacitate the legislator.

If any party could substitute a new candidate when the going got rough, what's the purpose of holding a primary election? The Democrats held one, selected Torricelli, and sent him forth, knowing he was damaged goods. Incidentally, the whole investigation, and Chang's conviction was done by the Clinton administration. It's been underway since 1997, Bush inherited it.

(Hey! He may be damaged goods, but he's OUR damaged goods. My trade association just sent me a notice this morning that my $1,000 contribution to his campaign still qualifies me for their circle of honor credit)

All good points Paul.

Nick

[Suzanne F]

Okay, but how will the argument that "Torricelli pulled out ONLY because he 'knew' he'd lose" hold up in court? How could anyone prove that was the reason?

[hollywood]

Okay, but how will the argument that "Torricelli pulled out ONLY because he 'knew' he'd lose" hold up in court?  How could anyone prove that was the reason?

I don't think Torrecelli's reasons really matter much. The issue is whether the Dems can put in someone new after the statutory deadline. And is the statutory deadline constitutional.

[Suzanne F]

But I thought that was the Republicans' main argument against allowing a change in the ballot, not only that the deadline had passed.

[NewYorkTexan]

Okay, but how will the argument that "Torricelli pulled out ONLY because he 'knew' he'd lose" hold up in court?  How could anyone prove that was the reason?

Then why did he forfeit the election? He was not physically incapacitated, if elected he would have been able to serve.

Dieing a political death is very different from actually being deceased.

He presented no substantial reason for quitting the race except to say that he did not want to be responsible for shifting the balance of power in the senate. Unless I am reading too much into that statement, which I am not, that is an admission that he was going to lose the race.

I doubt the actual reason for him quitting the race will matter to the courts.

[hollywood]

I doubt the actual reason for him quitting the race will matter to the courts.

Theoretically, to avoid having to decide every such controversy, they should annunciate a rule that would apply to any situation in which a candidate dropped out of a race--death, conviction, illness, embarrassment, boredom, etc. Of course, if New Jersey allows the substitution and the Dem loses, then they should exercize restraint and not take the case.

[Kim WB]

If anyone watched MSNBC last night, that was my husband ( "noted election attorney") who debated the issue with the attny from the RNC. My husband has also spent the day in Supreme Court, as part of the team representing the interests of the voters of NJ.

I have only briefly spoken to him, but the initial report was that the D's felt confident..I'm sure the R's are saying the same thing.

To me, the essence of elections are to provide the opportunity to choose...and that opportunity should take precedence over any arbitrary law. Don't forget, there is a large part of the population that do not vote int he primaries, but will still be disinfranchised if not given the choice.

I also personally feel that Forrester has been asking Toricelli to resign, and got what he wanted, and now needs to follow through on the inevitable legal wrangling that was bound to happen. Certainly, with the balance of the Senate at issue, he did not expect the D's to come out with their legal guns .

Speaking of guns, it would be absolutely wonderful if Forrester would let the foldks of NJ know his positions on Gun violence prevention, choice, Iraq, and a host of other REAL issues.

[NewYorkTexan]

Isn’t there a significant difference between quitting the race and resigning from the Senate? I do not know the exact legal ramifications, but my understanding is that the Democratic Party would be in a much stronger position if Torch would have resigned from the Senate? The fact that his opponent called on him to resign from the Senate is absolutely irrelevant to this entire discussion.

Torch can still resign from the senate, but he seems to be his own worst enemy.