Illustration by Cody Angell
|
Arizona Daily Wildcat
Wednesday October 9, 2002
Late last wek, the New Jersey Supreme Court allowed the Democratic Party to replace current Sen. Robert Torricelli ÷ who had decided to resign amidst allegations of improper campaign fundraising ÷ on the general election ballot. The Republican Party attempted to appeal the highly controversial ruling to the United States Supreme Court, but was denied. Did the New Jersey Supreme Court make the proper ruling? And does this set a dangerous precedent for replacing candidates at the last minute?
ĪD' stands for dummy with mafia ĪDon' Torricelli
Somehow, by an act of God (or a liberal New Jersey state court) Sen. Torricelli (AKA "The Torch," AKA "Don Torricelli") has managed to get himself off of the ballot. It looks like the last body he managed to bury was his own.
In a speech, Torricelli claimed that the fact he was losing the race or that he was under criminal investigation had nothing to do with his resignation. Anyone watching this speech might have noticed the pigs flying through the air behind him.
So the Democrats have replaced him with (surprise) a really old white guy named Lautenberg who will just sit there on a respirator and do what he's told. According to CNN, the Democrats "had" to "coax" him to come out of political retirement to fill in for the failed Torricelli. That conversation must have looked something like this:
Tom Daschle: "Hey Lautenberg, we really need you to run for the Senate again."
Lautenberg: "Peanut butter · I like peanut butter · Will there be peanut butter?"
Daschle: "Oh yes, Frank. There will be lots of peanut butter. All the peanut butter your little old heart desires."
There is a bright side to this for Torricelli. Without having to devote all of that time to being a Senator, he will have a lot more time to commit criminal activity that will probably involve the mafia.
Jason Winsky is a political science junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
N.J. senatorial races crushed by the doggie tail
Torricelli was nailed by the tail of President Bush wagging the dog.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to get involved with the fanatic N.J. elections. Good for them. They should have done the same thing with the 2000 presidential elections.
Last week, New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to permit the N.J. Democrats to switch Torricelli with Frank Lautenberg. According to state law, ballot switches can only happen before 51 days before the election has been reached. The Democrats decided to pull the switch 31 days before big Tuesday.
Illegal? Apparently not. The court ruled unanimously that election laws should be "liberally construed" to provide a "full and fair ballot choice for the voters of New Jersey." The Democrats made a convincing enough case to the state supreme court to support the switch. Good for them. That's how our legal system works. Whoever has the best lawyers wins.
Why all the fuss in the first place? It is because Democrats nation-wide are scrambling to keep control of the fragile senate majority. With anger from last elections surfacing, the Democrats are fighting like hell to get the votes.
With Bush using a war against Iraq to wag the dog, it is going to be a tough battle in and outside New Jersey.
Jessica Lee is an environmental science senior. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
N.J. Republicans need to grow up
N.J. Republican Senate Nominee Doug Forrester needs some Gouda cheese with his large bottle of whine to share with his fellow Republicans.
The "rules are rules" cry makes me wonder why these Repubs (you don't mind if I call them that, right?) don't take the pacifier out of their mouths and grow up.
Yes, Torricelli is a moron. A couple of European business suits, a 52-inch television and a Rolex have inhibited his run for re-election. Quite pathetic, actually.
However, the purpose of an election is so both parties, Dems and Repubs, can put their most able representative for the people to choose. Torricelli might be the most hated but he should not be elected, and it is a good thing that both him and the Dems realized their mistake. If the N.J. courts have approved former Senator Lautenburg to replace the incompetent Torricelli, so be it. End of subject.
It seems the best case Forrester has for winning is that the Demos aren't playing fair. The Repub's campaign is being rattled by the substitution instead of retaining their support from the N.J. voters because Forrester really is the right man for the job.
Mariam Durrani is a systems engineering senior. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Should be no exceptions for unethical fundraisers
According to N.J. state law, a candidate for federal office has until 51 days before an election to leave the ballot. The replacement candidate's name must be submitted to election officials 48 days before the election.
Torricelli dropped out of the race for Senate 36 days before the election. He missed the deadline. Democrats missed the deadline to replace him. Nevertheless, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that election statues should be "liberally construed" to provide voters with a "fair" choice of candidates.
There's nothing unfair about Torricelli's lack of popularity going into this latest election. He was reprimanded this summer by the Senate Ethics Committee for accepting gifts from a businessman who was later charged with violating election laws. Torricelli has also been in the spotlight for accepting illegal campaign contributions in 1996. In short, Torricelli was going to lose the race because voters doubted his ethical integrity.
By overriding state election law to allow Democrats to replace him (thereby possibly protecting a Democratic majority in the Senate), the New Jersey Supreme Court failed to uphold a fair election.
Scandal and controversy is part of politics. It's a big part of politics. Why is it suddenly being treated like an unexpected terminal illness? Torricelli did not innocently come down with a bad case of scandal ÷ he went out looking for it.
The Jersey high court should uphold election laws and put Torricelli back on the ballot.
Daniel Cucher is a creative writing senior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Fla. redux: N.J. Democrats keep voters in the dark
What is it that Democrats have against playing by the rules? For a party that cries so loudly about things not being fair, it readily abandons a process designed to ensure fairness in elections.
New Jersey's law that places deadlines on replacement of candidates is absolutely necessary to the fairness and effectiveness of elections. The principle behind laws is to ensure the proper vetting of candidates and to give the electorate the opportunity to weigh their choices and make an informed decision. The primary and general election seasons are institutions that give candidates the opportunity to expose the strengths and flaws of their opponents. If the Democratic Party is permitted to replace their candidate so close to election time, it destroys the vetting process and opens the election to dangerous, untested candidates.
By replacing Torricelli on the ballot, N.J. Democrats have created the opportunity for deceptive manipulation of the system. Imagine a scenario where a candidate slings so much mud that they both become unelectable, and suddenly, he drops out and is replaced by a seemingly squeaky clean candidate. Or maybe it would eliminate the seasons altogether.
Just as in Florida, Democrats are abandoning fairness in hopes of victory at the voters' expense.
Jason Baran is a public administration and policy graduate student. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Democrats did what they had to
Starting a campaign late is no easy task! Any candidate with as late of a start as Lautenberg will be behind in fundraising as well as name recognition. The fact that Torricelli has been replaced by Lautenberg for the general election does not mean all Torricelli supporters will be rushing to support the newly selected candidate.
The Republicans may deem it "unfair" for the Democrats to replace a candidate who has dropped out of the race after the primary. No matter what the Republicans say, the Democrats can run their primary and nomination process however they choose, as can the Republicans. The same Republicans who are complaining about Torricelli's replacement on the ballot are no strangers to fancy footwork when it comes to elections themselves.
Perhaps if Lautenberg weren't doing so well in the polls, the Republicans wouldn't care. For once, money from big business is unable to sway enough voters to take control over the Senate. The Democrats are simply doing what they have to in order to win. A candidate who has dropped out of the race could not win in the general. In order to keep the Republican from stealing the seat, the Democrats had no choice. They violated no election laws.
It seems the Republicans think the Democrats are acting unfairly no matter what they do ÷ unless they lose.
Kendrick Wilson is a political science sophomore. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
