Bob Torricelli's reelection bid had been in free-fall since this summer, spiraling down almost 30 points in the opinion polls before he withdrew from the race Monday afternoon. Unfortunately, even in his ungraceful exit, Torricelli displays the contempt for the law that got him into trouble in the first place. Even worse, the entire Democratic party seems ready to go along for the ride.
For those of you unacquainted with the saga of our senior senator, Bob Torricelli is accused of having accepted illegal contributions on numerous occasions. Among the alleged gifts were expensive Italian suits, a grandfather clock, jewelry and home entertainment equipment; in return, Torricelli used the privileges of his office to help his contributor secure certain business deals. Over half a dozen men are now in jail for their involvement in this scandal. Torricelli escaped with a "severe admonishment" by the Senate Ethics Committee that marked the start of his demise.
By last weekend, it had become painfully clear to him that his ethics problems would do more than just cost him reelection; they would also cost the Democrats control of the Senate. So, in a characteristically unapologetic farewell address, the Torch extinguished himself.
Talk immediately turned to a successor, and the powers that be in the New Jersey Democratic party have declared former Senator Frank Lautenberg the new candidate. Lautenberg is a well-respected legislator who could wage a much more credible campaign for Senate than the beleaguered Torricelli. There's only one problem: the deadline for replacing a candidate on the ballot passed over two weeks ago.
The attempt to put Frank Lautenberg on the ballot requires more than a creative interpretation of the state's ballot access laws; it means ignoring the laws altogether. Under New Jersey Statute § 19:13-20, a candidate may only be replaced 51 days prior to the election. Torricelli's withdrawal came only 36 days before the general election of Nov. 5. That is why the Democrats must go to court if they wish to have any chance of replacing Torricelli's name on the ballot.
The Democrats' legal argument is based on the 1952 Supreme Court case of Kilmurray v. Gilfert, in which a candidate who had passed away after the deadline was allowed to be replaced. However, that decision was focused on a three-day window that starts immediately after the deadline; Torricelli's withdrawal came 12 days too late for any such window to be relevant. There is simply no legal ground from which to argue that Lautenberg should be allowed on the ballot.
Democrats will argue that, in the interest of a free and fair democracy, the race should be allowed to remain a two-party competition, statutory requirements be damned. While perhaps a compelling argument at face value, at its heart is a dangerous disregard for the law.
I'm as much a supporter of free and fair elections as the next guy. I even enjoy the excitement of seeing democracy at work in a competitive race. But what is free and fair about breaking the law? What kind of competition is it if the rules need not apply?
Bob Torricelli made himself unelectable through a frightening disrespect for Federal campaign finance law. Somehow, he thought he was too important a man to have to follow the law on gifts. We have simple words in our language for what he allegedly did: bribery and corruption.
In the end, Bob Torricelli's immoral behavior caught up with him. Perhaps New Jersey Democrats should have thought twice before nominating someone facing an ethics investigation. But they didn't. And he was their candidate, for better or worse.
Now, though, it appears as if Torricelli's contempt for the law is infectious. Democratic leaders, from Tom Daschle to Jim McGreevey, are leading an effort to circumvent the law and get a new name on the ballot. They argue for competition and democracy. What they want is to keep control of the Senate, and they are willing to ignore the rules in order to do it.
Doug Forrester, the Republican nominee, stated quite articulately that New Jersey laws "do not contain a 'we-think-we're-going-to-lose-so-we-get-to-pick-someone-new' clause." Funny how the very same values that caused Torricelli's humiliating defeat are the ones that the Democrats now hope will carry them to victory. Lowell Schiller is a Wilson School major from Warren Township, N.J. He can be reached at schiller@princeton.edu.
Read More
Princeton, practice what you preach: SPIA graduate students on protest and dialogue
Guest Contributors"As policy students, we are appalled by the blatant hypocrisy of the University administration, which has relied on fear-mongering and false narratives to discredit student protestors. We are increasingly disillusioned with the dissonance of what we are taught in our classrooms and the University’s actions."
"As policy students, we are appalled by the blatant hypocrisy of the University administration, which has relied on fear-mongering and false narratives to discredit student protestors. We are increasingly disillusioned with the dissonance of what we are taught in our classrooms and the University’s actions."
Faculty call on the Board of Trustees to act in face of hunger strike
Guest Contributors“The Princeton University administration should understand that the law loses its moral force when it becomes so detached from ethics and basic human decency. The administration is sacrificing its moral sense and its purported affiliation to human decency in the name of upholding arbitrarily designed and implemented campus rules and regulations.”
“The Princeton University administration should understand that the law loses its moral force when it becomes so detached from ethics and basic human decency. The administration is sacrificing its moral sense and its purported affiliation to human decency in the name of upholding arbitrarily designed and implemented campus rules and regulations.”
Letter to the Editor: The gross manufacturing of narrative
Sarah Sakha"The Gaza Solidarity Encampment, a space we have created together, is an unwavering testament to community and care in the face of apathy, keeping each other safe by growing large, impenetrable, and powerful. And we have done so in spite of a larger apparatus working against students."
"The Gaza Solidarity Encampment, a space we have created together, is an unwavering testament to community and care in the face of apathy, keeping each other safe by growing large, impenetrable, and powerful. And we have done so in spite of a larger apparatus working against students."
