As a New Jersey lawyer I thought I should add my two cents. Our Supreme Court's unanimous opinion was a good one. If ever a case sounded in equity rather than in a strict reading of the law it was this one. While the New Jersey Greens have a fine candidate for Senate, Ted Glick, it is most unlikely that the media would have cooperated sufficiently to make it a genuine race between the Republican, Doug Forrester and anybody. In such a circumstance an office as important as a U.S. Senate seat should not be handed to anyone (Republican or Democrat) by default. Our Supreme Court properly placed its emphasis on this very point in basing its ruling on the core idea that elections are supposed to be real contests between at least two viable candidates.

The Republicans have now sought review in the U.S. Supreme, which has discretionary jurisdiction. I personally doubt that Court will accept the case. They will refuse to hear it exactly because they are a very political body, and a very intelligent body. They know that they acted in an improper, partisan manner in Bush v. Gore and they know that if they do so again in the Torricelli matter they will lose what little credibility they have left. Although the US Supreme Court majority probably prays every night for a Republican majority in the US Senate, they care more about their own viability than about the result in New Jersey. They will do what is smart and decline jurisdiction. Doug Forrester is not the son of the man who appointed many of them and they owe him nothing. Until recently, he was viewed as token opposition to Torricelli anyway, and the National Republicans were, and still are, pinning their hopes of attaining a Republican Senate majority elsewhere.

I was standing outside of Senator Torricelli's Senate office in Washington about to keep an appointment with his foreign policy staff member to lobby against Bush's Iraq incursion when I heard the news of his resignation. I am almost embarrassed to report how happy it made me, even though I was surrounded by his obviously upset staff. I did my best to hide my jubilation. Resigning from this campaign was the best thing that Torricelli ever did for the state of New Jersey, but it was typical of his selfish approach to life that he waited until after the stautory deadline to do the right thing.

Frank Lautenberg, on the other hand, always impressed me as a genuinely conscientious, thoughtful and civil person. He served three terms as our US Senator, but did not stand for reelection in 2000, when Jon Corzine was elected as his replacement. Lautenberg never liked Torricelli and probably found the need to work closely with him the most distasteful thing about the office. I am sure that he is taking great pleasure in being the replacement candidate. Most New Jerseyans seemed genuinely sorry when Lautenberg retired, and I think it likely that he will easily win in November. Certainly the many Democrats who were very unhappy about Torricelli's candidacy and were only reluctantly supporting him in this campaign are now likely to be energized to get out the vote.

The main reason that Lautenberg was selected, however, was probably the fact that he is 78 and probably does not really want to serve the full six year term. All of the other likely replacement candidates are sitting Congressmen seeking reelection and if any of them had been chose it would have required a further replacement of a House of Representatives candidate. Lautenberg has probably assured the Democratic Party that he will announce his resignation in time for an election to be held for his replacement in 2004, the next time the members of the House of Representatives are all up for election. At that time, there will probably be a major primary dispute for the Democratic Senate candidacy among several likely contenders. The Republicans, too, would get another shot at the office.

It seems to me that this scenario serves democracy (with a small "d") pretty well. Now, if only we could find a way to make Green Party candidates truly viable . . . .