Running to the Supremes

Discuss this on our boards!

Running to the Supremes
by James Hall, Senior Associate Editor

October 9, 2002

"Leaning Left"

James Hall First Republicans called on Bob Torricelli to be charged for his misconduct. When they couldn't charge him, they called on him to resign in shame. But now that he's finally resigned, bedeviled by the release of more details of his misconduct, Republicans are fighting to keep him on the ballot to ensure the election of their own troubled candidate. And where do Republicans run to when they have electoral problems? You guessed it --- the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately for them, this Monday the Supremes rejected hearing the Republicans' case, not wanting to soil their robes further than they did in 2000 in Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court rejected without comment the suit filed by Republican candidate Douglas Forrester on the first day of its new session. Another federal judge in Trenton threw out a suit by Republican absentee voters.

Republicans argue the switch of candidates in New Jersey violates election laws and sets a bad precedent. But the precedent had already been set --- by Republicans themselves. In 1990, only 8 days before the election for Minnesota's governor, Jon Grunseth, a Republican candidate riddled by a sex scandal, resigned from the race after finding himself hopelessly behind in the polls. Republicans appointed another candidate, Arne Carlson, who won the election.

The 2000 presidential race demonstrated an even large violation of election law --- a law directly written into the US Constitution. When candidate George W. Bush selected Dick Cheney to be his vice president, he chose a man who had lived, worked, and voted in Texas for over a decade as CEO of the Halliburton Corporation. Article 2, Section One of the Constitution clearly states that both the President and Vice President "shall not be an inhabitant of the same state."

Clearly Cheney and Bush were "inhabitants" of Texas, and Cheney's last-minute flight to Wyoming to change his address and voter's registration to that state was a circumvention of the Constitution. Or should the Constitution simply have advised one of the candidates to quickly move to another state? Where were all the Republicans who express concern about "the rule of law" when this shifty move happened?

Yes, Torricelli's decision to drop out of the race might have been motivated by low poll numbers. But there was little doubt his decision was also motivated by the increasing scandal surrounding his acceptance of gifts by lobbyists. Even if Torricelli had made a comeback in the polls and had won the race, the scandal likely would have continued to follow him and reduced his chances to be an effective legislator and leader. Under those circumstances resignation was his only prudent course.

Torricelli's scandal had increasingly overshadowed the issues of the Senate race. His opponent, Douglas Forrester, ignored all the normal issues of a political race and focused on Torricelli's misconduct. Essentially the race became a one-issue race, which was another good reason for Torricelli to resign and give the voters more a better choice than choosing between one candidate with a scandal and one without one.

With Torricelli gone and Lautenberg running in his place, the people of New Jersey now have a chance to consider the ideological differences of candidates Douglas Forrester and Frank Lautenberg. They can look at each candidate's record and positions on the issues and choose the man who best represents their positions.

But then maybe that's what Republicans wanted to avoid all along by keeping Torricelli on the ballot. Forrester is a pharmaceutical executive who made a fortune overcharging people. He wants to "fix" the environmental Superfund and use it to repair New Jersey's numerous chemical spills by charging them all to the taxpayer, not the polluters. He's out of step with New Jersey voters on issues like abortion and gun control. And he's a key piece to the restoration of Republican control of the Senate. Is he what New Jersey voters really want? If so, let him run on his ideas and beliefs, not on the scandals of a man no longer running for office.

With the decisions of the New Jersey Supreme Court and US Supreme Courts made, it's time for Republicans to stop hiding behind false indignation and run the New Jersey senatorial race on the issues. Or let them make a switch of candidates themselves --- after all, they've done it before. ***

Photo of the author courtesy of staff files
Photo of Senator Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) courtesy of the Associated Press