by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright October 5, 2002
All Rights Reserved.

icking and screaming, Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.) withdrew his bid for reelection only 35 days before the Nov. 5 vote, foolishly admitting his real motives. "I will not be responsible for the loss of the Democratic majority in the United States Senate," said Toricelli in an emotional farewell, marked by alternating moods of defiance and half-hearted contrition. "I will not allow it to happen." Admonished by the Senate for egregious ethical breaches, Torricelli—and the New Jersey Democratic Party—chose to run in the primary, winning the backing of his party in June. With the senate majority hanging on one seat and with Torricelli trailing Republican challenger Doug Forrester by 15%, party bosses put on the squeeze, booting the one-term senator out the door. Crying foul, Republicans complained that Democrats were trying to bait and switch. "What the Democrats have done is . . . illegal. They are trying to steal and election they could not win," said Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), head of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, outraged Democrats broke New Jersey election law.

     "Moving swiftly, Democrats filed a motion in the New Jersey Supreme Court, seeking to place former U.S. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) on the ballot. Granting Democrats' wish, the liberal high court promptly rubber-stamped the request, pushing Republicans to file for injunctive relief in the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite violating New Jersey law, the court ruled to give voters "a full and fair ballot choice," approving Lautenberg for Nov. 5. Reading between the lines, the law was designed to assist "the orderly administration of an election," said the court, ignoring Torricelli's admission that he withdrew to assure a Democratic victory. Setting a dangerous precedent, the New Jersey high court opened the door to manipulate elections by switching losing candidates.

     Sounding Orwellian, Democrats argued that denying their request disenfranchised New Jersey voters—especially Democrats—who deserve fair representation. But the court should have upheld the law and let the chips fall where they may. Choosing Torricelli, New Jersey voters exercised their franchise, not baiting and switching in the 11th hour. When Torricelli won the primary, voters expressed their will, not party bosses smelling defeat and scrambling to win. Party bosses and voters ignored Torricelli's problems back in June. GOP lawyers contend the high court "threatens to change the face of American politics . . ." claiming that the New Jersey Supreme Court trampled Doug Forrester's—and indeed all Republicans'—due process. Torricelli didn't withdraw out of moral duty or medical infirmity. He did so to protect his Democrat seat because his candidacy was failing.

     "New Jersey voters ignored Torricelli's ethical problems and chose him—not Lautenberg—at the primary. When voters came to their senses and soured on Torricelli, that's not voter disenfranchisement. Party bosses and the New Jersey high court broke the rules by changing candidates. In hindsight, California Republicans would love to reverse the primary and run someone other than Bill Simon against Gov. Gray Davis, now that he's running hopelessly behind. But that wouldn't be fair—and it won't happen. New Jersey shouldn't move the goal posts. Voters spoke on primary day. Unless Torricelli withdrew for legitimate reasons, the high court has no right to collude with manipulative party bosses trying to salvage an election. "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed by each State by the Legislator thereof," says the U.S. Constitution, reminding courts to show legislative restraint.

     Bending rules 35-days before the general election represents a more egregious breach than the controversy in Bush vs. Gore. In Bush vs. Gore, the Supreme Court ended Gore's attempt to order statewide manual recounts, reversing machine results certified by Florida's secretary of state. Unlike the merits of machine vs. hand-recounts, waiving New Jersey election laws for the sole purpose of salvaging a sinking campaign crosses a dangerous line. "California is very strict about getting on or off the ballot," said William P. Wood, chief counsel for the secretary of state in Sacramento. Democrats point to the recent withdrawal in Orange County of Superior Court Ronald C. Kline, pending charges on child pornography. Though similar to Torricelli, Kline pulled his name more than 68-days before the Nov. 5 election, conforming to state law. Unlike Kline, Torricelli neither met his state's deadline nor presented a compelling rationale—other than trying to win an election.

     No legal argument erases Democrats' colossal miscalculation, allowing disgraced Sen. Robert Torricelli to run for reelection. Breaking the rules in midstream not only disenfranchised New Jersey voters but also harmed Doug Forrester who waged a successful campaign against Torricelli. Throwing Lautenberg into the mix changes Forrester's entire strategy, forcing him to retool and plan a totally different campaign, robbing him of due process. Suggesting that Forrester would have to run against someone, denies that his campaign was tailor made for Torricelli. Rules of the road are different state-to-state. What happens elsewhere has little relevance to what happens in New Jersey. Allowing the New Jersey high court to subvert its state legislature—and U.S Constitution—sets a dangerous precedent. Common sense and plain fairness dictate that they should have left well enough alone—and kept Torricelli on the ballot.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's a consultant and expert in strategic communication. He's author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.