| Don't Cry For Me, New Jersey | |
 | |
In a scene that was reminiscent of the famous balcony scene in "Evita," United States Senator Robert Torricelli has announced that he was withdrawing from his re-election race for a U.S. Senate seat from New Jersey. Torricelli's re-election campaign has been dominated by ethics questions and an admonishment by his colleagues in the United States Senate. A recent poll showed him trailing his Republican challenger, Doug Forrester, by 14 points.
In a rambling, 30-minute speech in Trenton, Torricelli played the role of the victim, complaining that his message no longer could be heard with all of the talk of scandal. With tears in his eyes, Torricelli portrayed himself as one who had decided to fall on his own sword for the benefit of the Democratic Party and its efforts to retain control of the United States Senate. Torricelli made a point to mention the names of prominent Democrats who had tried to talk him out of withdrawing from the race - NJ Governor James McGreevey, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and former President Bill Clinton, to name a few. Considering the circumstances of his resignation, it's unclear how sincere those protestations could have been.
By electing to serve out the remainder of his term rather than immediately resign from the US Senate, Torricelli deprived NJ Governor McGreevey the right to name a replacement and potentially postpone the election for Senate until a special election could be held in several months. In merely withdrawing from the race at this time, Torricelli has only served to muddle the entire election process.
Had Torricelli withdrawn just two weeks earlier, his name could have legally been replaced on the ballot by the New Jersey Democratic Party. By waiting until 36 days before the scheduled election, New Jersey law would seem to require that his name remain on the ballot.
New Jersey Democratic Party officials intend to name a new candidate within 48 hours and petition the New State Attorney General (a Democrat) to waive the election law and place that candidate's name on the ballot. Names being discussed include former US Senators Bill Bradley and Frank Lautenberg, as well as current US House members Bob Menendez, Frank Pallone and Rob Andrews.
It is clear that the NJ Republican Party, with support of the national party, will challenge that petition in the NJ Supreme Court, which also has a Democratic majority. Their arguments are likely to be two-fold. First, NJ election law appears quite clear on this issue. The deadline for replacing a name on the ballot has passed. A second argument will surely be based on the intent of the law. If any candidate could withdraw in the last 51 days prior to the election and be replaced by his or her party's choice, what would stop every candidate who appears in polls to be destined to defeat to do the same? Clearly, the law was written with a purpose.
Will New Jersey become this year's Florida election debacle? Quite likely. It is clear that one thing that will not occur is a quick switch of candidate's name on the ballot. In fact, it seems quite possible that this entire matter will once again fall on the steps of the US Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. This time the question is not who will be President of the United States, but rather which party will have the majority in the United States Senate and the right to set the nation's legislative agenda.