BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election

Subject: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: DougR
Date: 01 Oct 02 - 11:46 PM

I have been expecting, at any moment, to see a Mudcatter so unhappy with the settlement of the last presidential election in the United States being settled by the courts, to post a protest about what is going on in New Jersey. Alas, no one has. How sad.

Every since Bush won the election due to a ruling by the Supreme Court of the U. S., there has been weeping and wailing on the Mudcat about the election being decided by the courts.

For non-citizens of the U. S., an explanation as to why this particular election in the United States is so important.

The United States Senate was controlled by the Republican Party when President Bush became president of the United States. Several months ago, a Senator, elected as a Republican, decided to declare himself an Independent. This threw the balance of power in the U. S. Senate from the Republicans to the Democrats. So, at the present, the Democrats (who represent the majority view on the Mudcat) controll the United States Senate by one vote. The defeat of a single Democratic Senator can change control of the U. S. Senate.

Robert Torricelli, a Democratic Senator in the United States Senate from New Jersey, got caught with his hand in the "cookie jar" during this session of the legislature. He was not prosecuted, but the supporter he was accused of taking bribes from, David Chang, was prosecuted, found guilty of giving bribes, and now is serving a prison sentence. The Senate Ethics Committee issued a serious reprimand to the Senator, but he was not charged. As an aside, it's difficult for me to understand how Chang could be prosecuted for giving bribes, but the Senator who received them only receives a reprimand. But that is beside the point of this thread.

Senator Torricelli ran for re-election to his seat in the Senate in the election that will be held in 35 days. Yesterday, with polls showing that he didn't have a chance in hell of winning over his Republican opponent, Torricelli withdrew from the election, and the Democratic party has filed a suit with the Supreme Court in New Jersey asking that they be allowed to name a new candidate. The new candidate would be appointed by the Democratic governor of the state.

Tonight, the governor named the Democratic's Party's chosen candidate. A former New Jersey Senator who resigned his seat in the 1980's.

The only problem is, New Jersey law states that a candidate cannot withdraw from the campaign less than 51 days from an election! They are now 36 days from election.

One would think that the solution is simple. The law says, "not less than 51 days," so obviously what the Democrats are proposing is illegal. But it is not so simple. Speculation is that the court, the majority of which is composed of Democratic Judges, will find a "loop-hole" that will allow the substitution.

If they do, that means that any candidate that is behind in a election, regardless of party, can withdraw, simply on the basis that the polls show they are going to lose, and a candidate can be substituted that he party feels has a better chance of being elected. Forget the fact that some people have already voted by mail, and that the ballots have already been printed with Torricelli listed as the Democratic candidate.

Now, non-U. S. Citizens might ask, what's the big deal? It's only a Senate seat! But that Senate seat COULD determine who is in the majority in the United States Senate. That is a big deal.

So. Those of you who decry the settlement of the U. S. presidency by the courts, how do you feel about the New Jersey courts trampling state law to decide the New Jersey election?

I know I don't have to remind you that with a Republican controlled senate, the Judges you don't want to see approved, will be, if there are vacancies on the Supreme Court, Bush will be able to appoint whoever he wishes (and at least two Judges have hinted at wanting to retire, both Arizonans)so it is an important election. I'll be interested in your comments.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Willie-O
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 12:34 AM

Well, Doug, it's sure an interesting case.

But you said it yourself: it's SPECULATION. One party has asked for an exemption from the law, and the court that is hearing the case hasn't made a decision yet, right?

When they do, no doubt things will heat up some.

As you've pointed out, there's a lot at stake and it would be pure
DREAMLAND to think that partisans of either side will quietly sit
by and not try to influence the situation.

But it's obviously premature, if nothing else, for you to accuse
the court of "trampling state law" when they haven't issued a decision yet. When they do, there will likely be some explanation
along with it, which will bear examination of its merits, yes?

I imagine the New Jersey Supreme Court is more familiar with New Jersey law than you or I.

Willie-O

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 12:55 AM

Well, Willie-O, I think I said, "speculation is the New Jersey Court would, etc., etc." I am not pre-supposing they will do it. We will see, won't we? I don't really think it takes a New York lawyer to read, and understand the law though. It's really very plain, for anywone who can read. That does not mean, however, that the court will not find a "loop hole."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 12:58 AM

It really doesn't matter, because with just a month to go till the election there's no way the Dems could mount a big enough push to give their new candidate a snowball's chance of winning. Maybe If they had been able to talk Bill Bradley into running again they might have a chance. Frank Lautenberg? No way. They should just gracefully concede the election and save their money.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 02:06 AM

Doug - Whatever is finally decided,

JUST WHAT BUSINESS is it of yours?

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 03:00 AM

Doug,

There is a big difference between the NJ case andthe US Supreme Court's decision in the BUSH/Gore election. Most of American legal practice, as you know, is based on legal precedent. There is a lot of legal precedent for the NJ supreme court waiving the rule on the deadline to post a candidate. There was, I believe, no legal precedent for the US Supreme Court to stop an otherwise legally mandated recount of votes.

The reasons why the 51 day rule has been and probably will be waived are:

#1: the primary reason for the 51 days law is so that there will be time to print correct ballots. Your contention that "the ballots have already been printed with Torricelli listed as the Democratic candidate" is not accurate. Only a few ballots have so far been printed, and the Democratic Party has offered to pay for any reprints that need to be done. So the SPIRIT of the law is satisfied even if a new candidate is added.

#2: The Court is bound to consider the needs of voters before the needs of either party. Therefore, it asks itself the question: is it better for the voters to have a choice, or not to have a choice? The answer is obvious. You will recall that in the US Supreme Court's decision re Bush/Gore, the question was "is it better for the voters to have their votes recounted, or not to have them recounted?" A much tougher question, and of course one which splits along Party Lines.

#3. Your contention that "some people have already voted by mail" is true, but this can only help the Republican party. Any vote for Torricelli will be thrown away, while votes for Forrester will be counted. Thus, the court may well decide that, if the Dems are willing to give up the absentee ballott votes, that is in itself punishment for missing the deadline.

Also, DougR, please remember that the court stepping in AFTER an election and determining how the votes can be counted is in fact very different from the courts ruling BEFOREHAND on how candidates can be selected. Courts can always rule on the process of an election before the election takes place, and inform the voters of any new rules that might affect their voting decisions, but courts must be very careful when ruling after an election to make sure that voters who cast votes in good faith under one set of rules are not disenfranchised by the substitution of another.

Finally, I agree with you that, while the deadline has been waived before, it might not be in this case were NJ's courts controlled by Republicans. But since they are controlled by Democrats I think it is very likely the deadline will be waived. Partisan? Probably.   Dirty old world, politics...but I still wouldn't equate this with the US Supreme Court's action in Bush/Gore.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 03:08 AM

One more thing, DougR...

if it is hypocritical to be a democrat who did not support the courts' intervention in Bush/Gore, but who DOES support their intervention in this election...

isn't it equally hypocritical to be a Republican who supported the US Supreme Court two years ago yet does not support the NJ supreme court intervening now?

It's the same thing: crying foul when the court's action hurts your cause and accepting the court's action gratefully when it helps your cause. Since you supported the Court's intervention two years ago, you should urge them to intervene now!

(hee, hee...we both know that ain't likely!)

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Blues=Life
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 11:13 AM

My only problem with this is the issue of activist judges making new law. The election laws are there to make a level playing field. If the candidate had died, then I might support a waiver of the law. But the reason for the waiver request is "I'm pretty sure I won't win, but someone else might have a chance, so let's switch." This means, Nerd, that your argument "is it better for the voters to have a choice, or not to have a choice?" doesn't hold water. The people of NJ already have a choice, one they decided on in the primary. Someone's going to lose the election, but let the people decide.

As an example, I hear from my in-laws in California that Gov. Grey Davis (D) is ahead in the polls against the Republican candidate. What would be the response if the Republicans said, "Oh, we don't think we can win, so we want to switch to Arnold Schwarzeneger." Arnold might just win. Don't you thing the Dems would cry foul? And well they should.

The democratic process is to take valid candidates, chosen by their parties, and vote on them. You win some, you lose some. The end does not justify the means in this case, because the end (keeping yourself in power to preserve "democracy") is negated BY the means (sidestepping the democratic process).

Blues
Registered Democrat
Believer in Democracy

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: JedMarum
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 11:31 AM

It seems unlikely that NJ would elect anyone other then a Democrat. I suspect if they listed the Democratic candidate as someone "to be named by the Democratic party after the election" THAT unnamed candidate would win! I'm afraid Torricelli did his party and hte people of NJ a disservice by not bowing earlier ... it seems likely that the NJ law prohibits a change in the ballot so late in the process (thousands of absentee ballots are already in process) but that is why we have courts, to rule on the finer points of law.

As far as the influence of this particular race on the status of Senate leadership; well there are more then half a dozen other races that are up in the air. This one may be the most controversial, for the moment - but the others are just as critical.

On the face of it - I believe replacing Torricelli's name on the ballot is illegal and expect the NJ court to say so. Even if the majority (and a small majority) of jduges are Democratic appointees, I would not expect them overturn the law; if indeed the law is as clear as it seems to be.

However, as I understand it - if Torricelli resigns his seat now, and a new Senator is appointed to replace him, the issue goes away - because the incumbent Senator is automatically on the ballot, if he/she is running. Am I corect about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: JedMarum
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 11:39 AM

just make sure I'm understood, my unnamed candidate comment above was tongue-in-cheek

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: wilco
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 12:01 PM

    In New Jersey, the Governor (a democratic) has the authority to defer the election to a later date, for a variety of circumstances. The legal question will probably be if the situation created by the withdrawal of Toricelli constitutes one of those circumstances.
    I suspect that there is more to Toricellis's withdrawal: probably a forthcoming criminal indictment. The democratic party probably wanted to avoid tainting the entire party with the spectacle of their senatorial candidate appearing on television in handcuffs, being led into court.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: kendall
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 12:35 PM

The republicans will do whatever is necessary to get their paws on the Senate, and, if they can do it by not having an opponent, they will.Competition is what made this country great, and an un opposed candidate is hardly democracy.
Arnold Schwartsnegger? would anyone really vote for that asshole?
Well sure, almost half of the voters voted for Bush.
It looks like the republicans will take the Senate, so, let's all get our tickets for the trip back to the dark ages.
Torricelli should have been kicked out long ago. He is not fit to be a Senator.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 12:53 PM

Blues, I respect your points and I agree that this is a fraught issue, not a simple one. But I understand these is precedent for this in NJ, so the law is less clear than the republican spin doctors are trying to make it sound.

Forrester was pulling way ahead of Torricelli in the polls, so it's not true that ANY democrat could win...

Also, one thing that rankles is that Forrester's cronies have been after Torricelli to resign for ages, saying his behavior makes him unfot to be a senator. When he resigns, they say "no! you can't resign!" Obviously, the risk of an unfit senator is worth it for them, if it increases their own chance to win.

Still, this could go either way, especially if the NJ court rules in the Dems' favor and the GOP appeals to the US supreme court.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 01:02 PM

I had not heard that there was a precedent for this Nerd. Do you mean in New Jersey?

Blues: Well said.

Kendall: You dont think The Terminator would make a good governor? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 02:20 PM

I don't think, like in football, there should be a "Make up call" on the NJ election.

Sure, by now most folks who aren't *Hell-bent true belivers* know that enough fishy smelling things were orchastrated by Bush and Harris in purging so many predominantly Democratic leaning voters proir to the 2000 election that between those and the massave amounts the Rebubs spend on goon squads and lawyers (hey, that's redundant)that they are to be credited with Bush, Jr's selection....

But, hey, we ain't gonna fix corruption with more of it. If the Dems are have any credibility they're gonna just have to play by the rules here. Now, I think if Toricelli wants to quickly rescend his withdrawl, if this can be done without creating a massave ballot reprintings, then that *should* be the only option. That is my opinion.

The part about the "Jeb and Kate" show, however, sadly to say... is fact.

Sorry to my Dem friends here and the last thing I want is to see the mean-hearted digmatic Rebubs take back the Senate, but, hey, if it takes a few crooks getting caught to clean up one corner of the corrupt part of the governemnt, then in the long run it will be worth it...

And don't fret, I'm sure there are a few Repub Senators sweatin' bullets about now, too. And, no, I don't have any proof other than to say, "stay tuned".

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 02:24 PM

Come on, Bobert, you KNOW something. Have the good folks in West Ginny got the goods on your Senior Senator? Fess up now! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 02:38 PM

DougR: my understanding is that there were precedents in New Jersey (I work in NJ, though I live in PA). But I do not know the details, so it may be hearsay. We'll hear about the legal arguments soon enough, and then we'll all be better informed.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 02:47 PM

Heck, Dougie, that ol' coot don't need to engage in no hanky-panky. He could spend 50 cents on an entire election and win. Rememeber the old Byrd Machine of the "Tom, Dick and Harry" days don't cha. Well, we got our own Bryd Machine right here in these hills, thank you...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 03:03 PM

DougR:

I've done some fact-checking. The closest precedents generally involve candidates who have died or become ill after the deadline, which is obviously different from Torricelli's situation. But in general, experts on NJ Supreme court decisions at Rutgers Camden (Hey! I work on that campus!) state that NJ favors voters rights over election deadline rules:

Election law experts said that New Jersey courts traditionally have put voters' interests ahead of election law deadlines.

"As long as the machinery of elections can function reasonably well, from printing the ballots and sending out absentee ballots and so forth, our courts have generally said they would prefer not to have voters suffer because of deadlines in the law," said Robert Williams, a professor at the Rutgers-Camden School of Law, who studies the Supreme Court.

Williams pointed to a race for a state Senate seat in South Jersey last year in which erroneous Spanish-language ballots were mailed to absentee voters. When the mistake was discovered, courts ruled that new ballots should be mailed out and the erroneous ballots that were returned should not be counted.

Source: Trenton Times

Finally, there's a correction that needs to be made as regards the supposed clarity of the law. The law states that Parties may make subsititutions up to 51 days before the election. It does not say they may not make them less than 51 days before the election. In other words, there is no law that states whether it is legal or not to substitue a candidate so close to the election.

I agree this sounds like a silly loophole, but the law may well have been specifically designed to send cases of short-notice substitutions to the courts rather than make them illegal across the board. It certainly has had that effect in this election.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 03:15 PM

Thanks for the info, Nerd, interesting stuff. I look forward to the decision of the NJ supreme court. I think they will have to put this on the fast track if they want their candidate to have much time to campaign. I suspect the court will dedide in favor of the Democrats. If so, it probably will end up at the U. S. Supreme Court.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Blues=Life
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 04:18 PM

Jed, You said:

"However, as I understand it - if Torricelli resigns his seat now, and a new Senator is appointed to replace him, the issue goes away - because the incumbent Senator is automatically on the ballot, if he/she is running. Am I corect about that?"

As I understand it, no, you are not correct. The candidate is The Torch, not The Current Senator. Torch won the primary, Torch is the Democrats' choice, and Torch is the candidate. Furthermore, Nerd, you said:

"Also, one thing that rankles is that Forrester's cronies have been after Torricelli to resign for ages, saying his behavior makes him unfot to be a senator. When he resigns, they say "no! you can't resign!" Obviously, the risk of an unfit senator is worth it for them, if it increases their own chance to win."

The problem is, he has NOT resigned, nor has he admitted to any wrong-doing. All he has said is that he will not be responsible for losing the majority in the senate. Hey, I might even support a ballot change if Torch said, "Your right, I'm guilty, and I'm not worthy to be a Senator. Take me away, I'll pay for my crimes." But he didn't say that. Did you hear the speech? I was in my car all day, and heard it 3 times! It made me sick! It was full of "Me, Me, Me. I'm Great. I've given so much." No regret, no remorse, no apology.

He is an embarrasment to the party.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: wilco
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 04:20 PM

It's disturbing to me that hate-filled invective can be casually directed at republicans. If people of another persuasion said that the democratic party was the equivalent of the nazi party because they have sponsored the wholesale slaughter of forty million babies in abortions, it would seem like equally ugly and mean-spirirted. Republicans are too polite to make such callous statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: NicoleC
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 04:52 PM

I dunno, I have mixed feelings. In principle, I think that arbitrary rules like filing deadlines and so forth should be secondary considerations to the voterss responsibility to elect a candidate.

On the other hand, all parties have agreed to abide by those deadlines. I don't know how disruptive it will really be to the election process. If it can be shown that a last minute change could significantly affect the ability to hold a fair election -- including causing significant hardship to the other parties -- then the Dems should be out of luck.

Otherwise, I think the voters should have the opportunity to decide. I doubt that a last-minute Dem candidate will be likely to win anyway.

But, dammit, all the court stuff needs to be settled BEFORE the election. If the NJ court says yes, and then the Repubs lose the election, 'taint democratic to run to the US Supreme Court and start whining after the fact. If there's going to be an appeal to the US Supreme Court, it needs to be beforehand.

Of course, that'll lead to a legal strategy of "running out the clock" so that an actual hardship will be guarenteed even if there wasn't one before.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 04:58 PM

Hey, Doug, just sit back and watch 'em squirm. It's finally out in the open, a Dem sooooo corrupt that he is losing in one of the more corrupt states in the Union. So he quits just to allow the other Dems a chance to pick a less corrupt Dem to run in a Dem controlled state. Ooooooh, pass the popcorn.

Actually, I believe even the NJ voters will see through this one, because they had already dropped Torricelli low enough in the polls to cause the bailout. I expect that most of them were Democrats anyway, and will stick with Forrester, once they smell the Nation breathing over their results. (They do not want to look like Florida, 'cause then the jokes go north).

And as I read both DC papers (Post and Times), the Republicans have a pretty good chance to keep the House and take the Senate. Then they can declare Jefford's state a Nuclear Waste Disposal Area, queue up the waiting judicial appointments (and the waiting air mobile divisions) and cut them both loose.

As a final twist, (though I'm not a lawyer) doesn't the Senate govern it's own elections, and can't they refuse to seat an "illegal" Senator? And if the new Senate contains more Republicans than Dems... ooooooh, I need much more popcorn...   

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: JedMarum
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 05:07 PM

Did anyone see the Monday night football game?? Denver was down something like 30 to 3 at the half ... in a game everyone expected them to win ... what if, after the half, they came back and said "we don;t have a chance to win, we're going to send in the New England Patriots to play for us."

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 05:54 PM

I doubt the NFL would stand for that, Jed. Interesting thought though.

Nicole: Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean, but the U. S. Supreme Court won't get involved unless the N. J. court rules in favor of the Democrats. Then, I'm sure the Republican Party will file an appeal with the U. S. Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see if the U. S. court accepts the case. I would think they would, but don't they adjourn in October?

Claymore: I'm not going to lick my chops until we see how this New Jersey thing goes down. It's an interesting position for the Democrats to be in though, isn't it?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: NicoleC
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 07:24 PM

The point I was making is that it isn't reasonable for the voters to turn out and vote, and (in the event they did elect the Democrat), have their decision overturned by a court of law over a relatively minor bureaucratic issue.

I would HOPE that if an appeal was filed the US Supreme Court would hear it right away – before the election – or not at all. It's a politically charged topic in light of the 2000 presidential election, and delay could seriously infringe on both the ability of voters to trust elections and the credibility of either candidate.

In other words – why will people bother to vote if the court system may overturn elections on technicalities? It happens occasionally, but when the US Supreme Court gets involved, it becomes big news. Voter apathy is a rampant issue already.

And, honestly, if the US Supreme Court ousted a Democrat and appointed a Republican post-election, the Supreme Court's credibility will also be seriously damaged. Even if they judged the case solely on its merits, it'll still seem like, "Again?" to a lot of voters.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: kendall
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 08:26 PM

Jed, my friend, there is a bit of a difference between our form of government and some silly ass ball kicking thing!

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 10:29 PM

Well, we know now that the N. J. Supreme Court has come down on the side of the Democrats. Personally, Nicole, I think the law reads pretty clear, and I believe the court ruling is wrong. I am not surprised, though, I must admit. I think it is a bit more serious than a "relatively minor bureaucratic issue." It is a law. It is meaningless now though, and both parties can substitute a candidate chosen by it to replace a candidate that polls show is on the road to losing the election. If this is considered a precedent, It could take place in any state I suppose.

There is still the issue of military absentee votes and how they are going to be handled but I suppose they will come up with some solution. According to what I have heard, federal law requires the ballots must be sent to military personnel, I believe, 34 days prior to the election. The printing presses must be working overtime in New Jersey about now. Since the law is federal, not state, the State Supreme Court can't bend it I wouldn't think, as they did today to state law.

Frankly, I wish the Republicans would not attempt to have the state court's ruling overturned. I'd like to see the whole thing dropped and see if the Republican can win over Lautenburg without the help of the Supreme Court. It the Supreme Court did rule against the state court, the liberals would scream to high heaven, even if the ruling was clearly correct. On that, Nicole, we agree.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: The Pooka
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 11:22 PM

(1) The Senate should stay Democratic & I hope to God it does.

(2) But the question here is not **at all** the political one to which (1) above is my personal answer.

(3) The unelected courts, whether in Florida, New Jersey, or Washington D.C., should not be setting aside state election laws adopted by the elected state legislatures and signed by the elected state Governors, unless such laws are plainly unconstitutional. New Jersey's withdrawl/replacement statute, albeit harsh, is not. It may be flawed policy---in CT where I am a 25-year Elections Officer, we manage (barely) with a 10-days-before-election replaceable-withdrawl deadline, which is probably too late while NJ's 51 is too early; 30 or so is good---but **it is not the job of the courts to make such public policy**.

(4) The rights of NJ voters are certainly no more compromised by the candidacy of a Torricelli who was **nominated in a June primary by 181,468 NJ voters**, than they are by the belated candidacy of a Lautenberg "nominated" by a "consensus" of the Dem. State Committee the other night.

(5) Torricelli had every opportunity to (a) not run at all, or (b) withdraw before the deadline. Having blown those opportunities, and then suddenly noticed the handwriting on the wall, he should have run on the basis that a vote for him is a vote for his dear friend Lautenberg (whose guts he hates & the feeling is mutual) because if elected he pledges to resign immediately upon taking the oath in January & Gov. McGreavey will then will appoint Lautenberg to replace him. This would have worked real good since everybody knows Bob Torricelli's word is his bond. HOWEVER,

(6) the Joysey Court has ruled for the Democrats. Bad decision; but OK, that's it. The Repubs should not appeal to the Supremes, and when they do anyway the USSC should decline the case, because IT IS NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE. The *wisdom* of the Jersey law, and/or the Jersey court decision, is irrelevant. The US Constitution is not involved here. It's a state matter. Instead,

(7) the R's should now prevail upon their man Mr. Not-Bob-Torricelli, by the arts of rational persuasion ("send Luca Brazzi"), to similarly withdraw since the deadlines don't apply---and nominate Christie Todd Whitman, by Consensus of Somebody-or-Other, to fill the vacancy. Then everybody's rights will come out just fine, won't they?

(8) IT IS NOT JUST THE OUCOME THAT MATTERS. The Process matters, too. T

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: kendall
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 05:39 AM

One says the law does permit a last minute replacement, another says it doesn't. Ok, who do we believe without doing our own research?

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: The Pooka
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 09:30 AM

Cap'n Kendall: we believe Me. :) (Weee don't neeeed no steeeenkin' reeee-search...)

Hey, the NJ court ruled unanimously. So, it's 7 to 1. I win. LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 10:38 AM

Actually, I'm gonna have to side with GUEST,Claymore for probably the first and last time, of course unless he steps to plate in defense of the 1st Ammendment on another thread, in hoping the Rebubs do take the Senate. As long as the Dems. control the Senate Bush has a 24/7 excuse for anything he screws up. Yeah, I'd like the whipping boy untied and let the Repubs. just "have their way" for a while. Just as long as there is any shread of the Bill of Rights left afterwards, it will certainly be the demise of these mean-spirited, dogmatic, hypocritical and very much heathanistic group of people who are running the country. Yeah, bring on the cure.

Not that the Dems are much better, but they will get better quick with the Repubs in fool control..., ahhhh, full control.

But until then, I'll stick with my Green friends.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 11:41 AM

I'm actually with Pooka on this one. Even if the NJ court had not ruled my way, I think it would be a bad precedent to take this to the US Supreme Court. Frankly I think it's odd that conservative Republicans, who are usually advocates for reduced Federal controls and increased States' Rights, would want the USSC to intervene. But of course both sides play politics rather than preserving proper procedure in cases like this.

Wilco, the first time Nazi comes up on this thread is on your post. Was there something so offensive it was deleted? Also, "Republicans are too polite?" Who are you trying to kid, man? Both parties have some embarrassing rhetoric in their histories.

In the interests of full disclosure, I did refer to Rush Limbaugh as a "flaming Nazi gasbag" in another thread, but this was a reference to the well-known joke:

What's the difference between the Hindenburg and Rush Limbaugh?
One's a flaming Nazi gasbag and the other's just a dirigible.

Now I think the important question is: Was this joke written by a Democrat, or was it one of those Greens?

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 05:39 PM


Actually somebody is absolutely going to have to appeal this thing to the Supremes; the precedent is appalling.

Imagine any race for a given Federal office in which the true candidate is not known until the last moment. That virtually every announced candidate is a "stalking horse" for another perhaps better, or perhaps more shady character, who does not wish to give the public or the press time to delve into his background. A rich man can hire his front man to run through the primaries, thus bypassing them, and then spring onto the stage at the last moment (denying the rights of the primary voters). Or a political party can vet two candidates, run one, with the other running as a third party candidate, only to cross reference them at the last moment.

What of the "free speech" issue of giving your candidate money to run ("hard" vs "soft" money) when it is suddenly shifted to someone you opposed all along. (No need to imagine this one, both NJ Senators hated each other, so it's not hard to think their supporters felt much the same way.)

All it takes is one voter to roll this log over, and if the Republicans didn't step up to the plate on this one, anyone who has partaken of the process at any point so far, Dem or Republican, has a standing to sue.

I formally suggest we now name the state, New Florida! (And the political bumper stickers are dry erasable... ).

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Bennet Zurofsky
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 06:20 PM

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 . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: kendall
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 07:44 PM

Former NJ governor, Christine Todd Whitman, republican, appointed 6 of the 7 judges on the NJ court. Does that tell you anything Doug?

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: DougR
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 08:01 PM

Kendall: I think it still does not excuse the N. J. Supreme Court ruling as it did. Toricelli should never have run in the first place. If he hadn't I doubt Lautenburg would have run, but someone who would plan to serve full term would have been in the race rather than a guy who might serve two months.

You infer, by your question, that members of the court are beholden to the person who appointed them. Well that certainly wasn't the case in this instance. They showed their loyalty to their party, not to the law, IMO.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: The Pooka
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 08:37 PM

Nerd, "I'm actually with Pooka on this one." Whoa! Thanks for your support & well-stated points. But, be careful of damage to yer reputation...:)
Claymore: in CT, with our very late withdrawal & replacement deadlines (10 & 7 days before election), we DO sometimes get "stalking horses", albeit for lower offices, e.g., state legislature ("How Low can you Go?"). "Stiffs", a Rebublican former-politico friend of mine called 'em. Put somebody in with a gentlemen's agreement to withdraw when you've found somebody stronger, following the close of the statutory "original-nomination" window-period. / 'Course then you're trusting the Gentleman(woman) to keep her/his word & bail out when you say so. Sometimes they change their minds. Nuttin' ya can do then. As Amos says: LOL!!
Atty. Bennet Zurofsky: thanks indeed for that fine, informed, "insider" legal & political analysis. / Tell me this: Do you think that it is, in a purist Constitutional sense (i.e., politics aside -- HA!), legitimately a Federal Question? I gather the Repubs now plead, among other things, that the NJ judiciary has violated the US Constitution's supposed allocation to the *state legislatures* of the power to regulate the time, place and manner of conducting elections for federal office. Does that bucket hold any water? / Thanks again for the expertise, counsellor.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: kendall
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 09:09 PM

C.T.Whitman appointed democrats to the court? Hard to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: toadfrog
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 11:01 PM

Well Doug, you are consistent. You have said, you want to live in a "republic, not a democracy." But I was brought up to believe in democracy as an ideal, and it seems to me, people have a right to be represented by someone who shares there ideas. And I am confident I would feel that way even if my party would lose under that principle. I think the people should choose. I don't want to live in a system where parties routinely squeak into power by technicalities.

And as a lawyer, I know a little about how statutes are construed. Before I accept the construction the Republicans are putting on this one, I want to hear not only the wording, but the history of the statute. And prior case law construing it. Because I very much doubt the intent of the NJ statute was to create technical obstacles to the will of the people.

But then, who am I?

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: GUEST,In Our Nation's Capitol
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 11:52 PM

Appropriately titled thread, as "Mickey Mouse" often gets many write-in votes. And write-ins is the issue I would address here:

Putting Lautenberg's name on the ballot in the Democratic party's place will make life much easier for New Jersey than if they don't. If he's not allowed on the ballot, a massive campaign to write in his name would probably take hold. Democrats would write in his name rather than waste a vote on Toricelli. Under those circumstance, Mr. Lautenberg might get several million write-in votes, and could very well win, but each write-in vote must be counted manually. Post-election tabulation in New Jersey would be a nightmare, as counting of the ballots would probably take many days, if not weeks.

"Can't happen!" you say? Look at what just happened in Washington, DC duiring the primaries, when incumbent mayor Tony Williams screwed up his petitions to be included in the Democratic primary. Instead, he initiated a write-in campaign. He not only won the Democratic primary, but got more votes than anyone else in the Republican primary. (But he was not allowed to capture both positions, because, wisely enough, the DC system said the voters should have a choice. The Republican party committee named Carol Schwarz to challenge Williams.) Vote counting took several days, and there are 14 times as many New Jerseyan as District residents.

If the Supreme Court chooses to keep Lautenberg from replacing Toricelli on the ballot, I predict a write-in campaign for Lautenberg will win the election for him. Angry New Jerseyans will rally to a battle cry of "Write in Lautenberg and stick it to the Supreme Court." (Actually, knowing New Jersey, the quote above is bowdlerized.) And if Lautenberg wins under such circumstances, the Supreme COurt and Bush's judiciary will have a true enemy in the Senate to deal with.

Signed, DeeCee person

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: DougR
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 03:47 AM

Well Toad, I can't answer your question. I don't know who you are. But you say you are a lawyer, so I would assume you know what a law is. There must have been a reason that the state legislature in New Jersey passed the existing law. I doubt it was enacted solely to allow a duly elected candidate in a primary to withdraw from the general election becaue the polls showed he/she was going to lose.

I find it difficult to understand how ANY officer of the court would find that so hard to accept. To me, the New Jersey's Supreme Court decision smacks of the rotten politics most Mudcatters usually say they abhor. Some have said so, though they are admittedly not sympathetic to the Republican point of view. I salute them (including my friend Bobert).

"But then, who am I?"

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 10:48 AM

I appreciate Mr. Zurofsky's views of the current state of affairs in New Florida, but I have to say I did pick up a perceived bias on his part, which may color his views and to some extent the information he provides. To say that the Supremes acted in a "improper" and "partisan" manner is his view (which he is welcome to express) but is far afield in my view. As a cop I've had to live with more than a few 4-3 split decisions, and that law was just as good as 7-0, as any defense attorney will quickly remind you.

I actually hope the USSC does pick up the case, if only to provide some derivative guidelines for what is sure to be a flurry of laws within most conscienious state legislatures, to prevent this farce from occuring in their own state. I do agree that the Supremes will try and duck this issue any way they can, but since this is realy not a case of true National importance, they may let the issue "mature" and sit this one out. I also feel that the Republicans will pull out enough Senate seats to take control, if only from Republicans in other states marching to the polls to avenge themselves of what will be widely regarded as typical Democrat-controlled New Jersey scum politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: NicoleC
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 11:39 AM

Doug, the diffence is a state court in NJ is adjucating a clear STATE issue, whereas the election in Florida was a state election issue being adjucated by a FEDERAL court.

I think it's interesting that all the Repubs that sneered at "liberal whining" over the 2000 election -- a clear case of a court being out of it's constitutional jurisdiction (even if you agree they should have gotten involved) -- are now whining that the NJ Court is partisan because the decision didn't go their way.

Since I don't know the exact particulars of the laws and state precedent, I can't guess if the decision was partisan or not -- my guess is not, most judges manage to leave politics out of their decisions; the few that don't get a big reputation for it. But I do think the case doesn't belong in the US Supreme Court for jurisdiction reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Nerd
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 12:21 PM

Remember, Claymore and co., this was a UNANIMOUS decision by the NJ supreme court, only four of whom are Democrats, made in a matter of hours! You can make it out to be "typical Democrat-controlled NJ scum politics" if you want, but your head's in the sand (or somewhere else!) if you do. Obviously, the justices, whether Democrat or Republican, whether appointed by Whitman or Keane, whether they support Lautenberg or Forrester, think that putting Lautenberg on the ticket is NOT a violation of the law. You can't argue this was partisan, contested, or even controversial in their eyes!

As I pointed out earlier, the NJ legislature wrote a law that does not specify whether you can replace a candidate closer than 51 days to an election. All it says is that you can replace one up to 51 days before an election. The effect of this law is to put such cases where a substitution is made later up to the discretion of the courts, and it's conceivable that this was the law's intention. In any case, that's how it's always worked in NJ, and the courts almost always say yes. The only reason people are crying about absentee ballots and reprinting old ballots and yadda yadda yadda is because of the elevated stakes due to a 50-50 Senate. Take that away and you have a clear-cut case of the courts doing what they usually do no matter who stands to gain or lose.

As to the argument that anyone can step in at the last minute and win an election, that's bull. It takes months of advertising and publicity to even hope to win an election. The main reason they picked Lautenberg is that he's the only Democrat with a hope of winning because he only retired a couple of years ago and so has almost an incumbent's name recognition.   But try to put up a congressman from Newark and the folks in Camden will say "who?"

Is there are real danger of "Arnold Schwarzenegger" candidates who are famous in their own right? Let's get real. Arnold does not want to be a U.S. Senator right now, and if he did he could probably run in the normal manner and win. Meanwhile, it would NOT be easy for a party to conceal the fact that their secret plan is to substitute Arnold at the last minute in a senate race, and the minute the rumor gets out, the court still has the discretion to rule against the substitution. So the stalking horse theory is a bit lame.

As to the argument that the courts are taking away the legislature's power to regulate an election, two points. One, this makes no sense given that the court's function is to interpret and apply the laws written by the legislature. All the court is doing with this ruling is saying "we think this is what the legislature's law means and how it applies to this individual situation." That's what the court is for. You can argue that they interpreted the law badly, but not that they should not have the discretion to interpret it at all!

Second, to try to argue this position in an appeal before the US supreme court would be ludicrous, since this USSC has come under great fire for doing the same thing. The court, by ruling that the NJ Supreme Court had no right to give Lautenberg the go-ahead, would be essentially admitting that it also had no right to stop the recount in Florida. Either the courts CAN make rulings relating to election procedures or they CAN'T. Wanna see the US Supreme court argue that they can't? Me too, but don't hold your breath!

I think the appeal will be based on what they normally are based on: "We think this was a bad interpretation of the law: what do YOU think?" On that basis, the USSC could very well agree with the appeal and overturn the decision without saying anything about their own actions two years ago.

Frankly, I hope the USSC turns this case down, but I have come to expect blatant partisanism since the Presidential election, and I wouldn't be surprised if Bush lobbied them into ruling against Lautenberg, then stopping the hand-count of write-in votes to give the election to Forrester.

PLEASE, justices, prove me wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: kendall
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 12:21 PM

So, Doug, is the NJ court mostly dem. or rep.?

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Nerd
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 12:38 PM

Kendall,

The court is an interesting one. It is mostly Democratic, (4 Dems, 2 Reps, 1 ind), but most of the justices were appointed by Whitman, a Republican. So they have loyalties on both sides of this issue.

In the end, though, it didn't matter. They did just what every expert on the NJ supreme court said they would do, because it's what they usually do in cases like this! Yo people: there is very little controversy here outside of that being stirred up by Forrester's supporters!

The funny thing is, Republicans everywhere are trying to ram Forrester through the process even though they probably don't know a damn thing about him and care not a whit what he does to NJ. It's not about NJ to them, and it's not about Forrester, or Toricelli, or Lautenberg. It's about chairmanship of Senate committees, which is where the real power is (they would all go to Republicans if the GOP takes a majority in the Senate).

Well and good, but then they should stop bitching about NJ court procedures about which they know nothing and care even less! Honestly, some of our livelihoods are affected by who wins in New Jersey because we live and/or work here! If people are more concerned about federal politics, they can support Republican candidates winning if they want, but they should butt out of the routine operations of NJ laws which are safeguarding our rights, not theirs.

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: Nerd
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 12:40 PM

Whoa! Sorry about that, all! As you can see, there's some angst here... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Mickey Mouse New Jersey election
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 02:27 PM

Nerd, et al

First of all, as in most cases reviewed by the USSC, the state courts get a chance at coming up with a solution first. And in our system of laws, the Supreme Court can review that decision. And this is indeed a Federal matter, since it is a US Senator, not a state office holder. I don't think anybody is arguing that state courts can't review the legislations intent and the resulting law.   

Secondly, I believe the Constitution leaves the governance of state wide elections to the legislature and not to a case of first impression in the courts. But giving the final interpretation to any law, state or Federal, is what the Supremes do...

Thirdly, the USSC has been under fire since it's existence, from Malbury-Madison, Mapp-Ohio, Miranda-Fla, to Roe-Wade and Gore-Bush. They may not like it, but Scalia probably has a wet spot on his robes, thinking about this.

Forthly, the "stalking horse" scenario is already being played out. What is Lautenberg but a stalking horse for whoever the Democratic Machine wants to put in during a special election to be held when the Machine decides it's ready. Christ! the only thing we're missing here is a signing bonus, and a Puerto Rican shortstop to be named at a future date.

Finally, you are absolutely right that Forrester should be of the least concern in this case. As must be reiterated to Dems time and time again, "It's about the Law, not about individuals"...

In any case, and whatever happens, we shall all have a position on the matter, and about half of us will be right...