Other Columns by Mike Bayham
Mike Bayham Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

NJ's Court "Torches" the Law
By Mike Bayham
October 3, 2002

The first battle for control of the US Senate was close to being brought to an end before the first ballot was cast in New Jersey when US Senator Robert Torricelli (known in political circles as "Torch") announced his intention to not seek reelection with only little more than a month away from the general election.

Though considered a seat likely to be retained by the Democrats several months ago, the race took a recent turn for the worst not long before the November contest when polls showed the incumbent US Senator with a remarkably low approval rating and an astronomically high negative rating. It should be noted that Torricelli was a prominent figure in Democratic circles as the former successful head of the Democratic Senatorial Committee, which played an important role in bringing his party back to majority status in the US Senate.

However with the clock running down before election day, it became apparent that usually effective anti-Republican scare tactics would not be sufficient enough to bring down Torricelli's GOP opponent to a level where he could be beaten. Not wanting to enter the election down a US Senate seat, the Democrats decided to persuade the US Senator to concede now and recruit an electable stand-in.

Regrettably for "Torch" and friends, there was one problem: New Jersey law mandates that the timeframe to replace a candidate already nominated via primary is 51 days before the general election. Torricelli's departure took place at the 36 day mark. For most people that can read at a fifth grade level and have respect for the law, this rule would pose a formidable and impassable roadblock for a candidate switch. The law is black and white on the matter and there is no gray area.

However, rule of law, ethics, or even death has never stopped the Democrats from getting in the way of trying to win an election. Seeking judicial relief, they appealed to the New Jersey State Supreme Court, the northern ideological cousins of the infamous Florida high court, in order to hold on to any hope of keeping the state in the "D" column.

In a move that should not have surprised anyone because of its philosophical and political bias, the court ruled in favor of the Democratic swap stating with a 7-0 decision that "election law should be broadly interpreted to allow parties to put their candidates on the ballot, and most importantly, to allow the voters a choice."

Being a cynic regarding the modern American judiciary (AKA a realist), the New Jersey Supreme Court has shown that it is yet another court that has been politicized by partisan judges who are more concerned with the "big picture" than simply interpreting of the law. The nation has been plagued over the last hundred years by jurists who see themselves as judges from the Old Testament who made the law instead of being people simply charged with the responsibility of reading and interpreting the law.

We have seen these "deity" wannabe's try to throw the Almighty off of public property and bowdlerize it out of the pledge of allegiance. Since I am nothing more than a lowly person that sees a "stop sign" for what it is and not for what it is meant to be for the common good of society, I am going to try and explain their motivation for the ruling.

Either a) some on the court believe that the GOP is evil and that its control of the US Senate would bring great harm to the state and nation and are obligated to look out for the well being of the population by helping the Democrats vanquish this force of darkness or b) that as a lifelong Democrat they'll be damned if they are going to pass up an opportunity to stick it to the Republicans.

While both cases at least follow a seriously tainted train of logic, what cannot be argued is that the people of New Jersey did not have a choice. Despite his ethical lapses that landed him in hot water in the first place, Bob Torricelli was, correction, IS the lawfully nominated candidate of the Democratic Party for the US Senate in New Jersey, just like Douglas Forrester is the Republican candidate for the same office. Both won primaries and have earned their place on the November ballot. It might not be a favorable choice for Democrats more concerned with salvaging the party's chances in controlling the US Senate in 2003, but it is still a choice.

Furthermore, most voters knew Bob Torricelli was not a saint long ago. The fundraising problems that have been a political albatross to him now were brought up long ago. The Democrats were well aware of his handicaps but that he either deserved their loyalty for his service to the party or that he could "ride out" the election just like former President Clinton was able to endure his own significant political scandals. Thankfully for Republicans, the "Torch" is no Bill Clinton.

There have been many Federal elections across the nation in which incumbents were returned to office without opposition. Shall we now change it so that the other party has an opportunity to name the most electable candidate at any time before election day just so the race is competitive? New Jersey law already provides this, as previously stated, however, the rules should not be tossed aside because the time period just so happened to not conform to the same movement of the poll numbers for Senator Torricelli.

While partisans on both sides might be more worried about the actual election, the greatest travesty was that a court has once again scoffed at our republican government by hiding behind the bumper sticker logic of supposedly promoting democracy. As was the case in Florida and Missouri, the Republicans, who have every intention of appealing the verdict, are standing by rule of law while the Democrats adhere to the rule of men... scratch that, rule of party bosses.