Hell with this! The deadline for replacing Toricelli has PASSED, the DemocRATS can't retract him now.

Boy, you guys are sneaky. How come we couldn't dump Simon in California? What's the law there?

LOL, the deadline has passed, but there's a loophole (besides, this is the Dems NJ):

"The deadline to replace Torricelli on the ballot was September 16th, but Democratic insiders say they believe there is still time to make a switch. Any change of candidates would have to be approved by a vote of the Democratic State Committee."

I am not convinced that Riordan doesn't have something planned for the last month of the election.

RWG:

Torricelli is not being replaced as the Democratic nominee, but rather resigning his position as the INCUMBENT Senator. Simon is merely a candidate, so CA Republicans are boxed in, save a write-in campaign.

TxDem,

He can resign if he wants to, but as far as I'm concerned, his name is still on the ballot.

But unfortunately, your side will probably get away with this...the NJ Attorney General is Dem, huh?

I have to congratulate your party though...you're sneaky. We're nowhere near as savvy (if we were, we would dump Hutchinson!)

This gets into arcane areas of campaign law, so, someone reassure me: this whole Torricelli quits/McGreevey appoints scenario couldn't possibly screw up Dem control of the senate over the next 12 weeks?

Also, can I assume all the potential replacements hail from districts where any warm Dem body will win?

You have to love the irony here. The Chang memo -- which, for me, was like the Ray report ("I could have convicted, I just decided not to") -- was supposed to be the kiss of death for Dems this year. Instead, it could turn an iffy race into a (D) sure thing (in the process freeing up money for MO, OR, CO, NH etc.). As I posted elsewhere, it's like what happened in the 1990 MN Gov race, where a likely loser became so radioactive he was dropped for a moderate most party leaders preferred to begin with -- which said moderate went on to win the election.

(1) Menendez has seniority in the House, and probably isn't going to want to give that up. Pallone's seat isn't locked up for the Democrats in an open seat race, making Andrews the much more attractive choice. He's running unopposed. Bradley's another good choice.

(2) Even replacing the Democrat, Forrester's not out of it. There's a little thing in play I like to call 'Bob Franks Syndrome'. Voters resent it when parties try to pull this kind of crap to win elections. Bob Franks couldn't handle running a painfully short campaign, and got blown out by Schundler, who never would have won otherwise. That would be Forrester's new talking point.

Besides, Senate races are *always* close in New Jersey.

(3) McGreevey is going to be loath to do this. He knows that it'll drop his numbers, especially among Republicans. Win the 2002 election or not, this would make the GOP favorites to take back the State Senate.

(4) Bob Torricelli isn't the graceful loser type. If he drops out, he was FORCED out. Probably by threats of cutting off his soft money.

(5) Good riddance to Bob Torricelli, no matter HOW it happens.

Why should it affect McGreevey's numbers? It's the Torch's decision to drop out, McGreevey is just doing his job by choosing a replacement. Sure, some Republicans might get upset, but they probably wouldn't have supported McGreevey anyway.

All major positions in New Jersey are appointed by the Governor. (Through a fluke in our constitution, however, the farm industry is allowed to choose who they want as Agriculture Secretary -- usually a Republican.)

If this works I must give props to the NJ Dems. I have to admit I did not see this coming.

Good get rid of Torch and preserve the seat for a worthy Dem in N.J. But if he resigns then won't the senate be 49-49 back in GOP control? Unless of course McGreeve can get an imediate appointment. Or.....if Jim Jeffords declares himself a Democrat instead of an Independent. Thus making the senate 50-49 and one MIA.

As for Hutchinson- The GOP had there chance to pick Duggar but either way it would of been a Pyor victory.

For organizational purposes, Jeffords is a Democrat, so any new leadership vote would be 50-49. The Senate isn't changing hands.

I hear a press conference is scheduled for 4pm. Looks like its about to be made official.

By the way, MyDD, I'd double check your Senate Projections for errors. I noticed one huge glaring one. :)

I hope Torricelli resigns. I am praying for it. I don't think that the Democrats should try and get the replacement on the ballot this late in the game. I don't New Jersey voters will like that at all and Forrester could win in the resultant backlash. It is better for them to replace him with a solid Democrat who can serve till 2004 when he would be up for election. Voter anger would likely be gone and the seat would be out of the 2002 equation. There would be no chance of the GOP picking up NJ this year.

This would free up tons of money for the Democrats to put into other races like Texas, Oregon, SC, NH, CO, and other where they have a real legitimate chance to take over seats.

What if Forrester appeals to SCOTUS as this clearly does him irreparable harm, state's rights be damned?

If McGreevey names the nominee quickly, and the election proceeds, I have no problem with that, it's just a slick way of improving the Dems chances. But if he waits until 30 days, cancels the election and appoints someone for the next two years, I hope the GOP remembers the Dems rantings in FL. What they're talking about here will REALLY leave millions of voters disenfranchised--cancelling an election for the sole purpose of saving a vulnerable seat and Tom Daschle's position. The GOP should scream "disenfranchised" about NJ every 5 minutes for the next 10 years if the democrats do this. And perhaps they should also consider declaring war in the Senate and fillibustering everything if they seat a senator that was appointed and not elected.

Perhaps this is all premature though. Torricelli say he's going to address "today's misleading rumors" at his press conference.

The double Smith error? That's probably a sub-conscious slip. I am not seeing Bradbury as very impressive. He's already been making excuses about his lack of money (got in the race too late). If he wins, it's because the Salmon took a hit for him, and Forward Oregon's GOTV effort to takeover the leg for the Dems has coattails, not because he's that great a campaigner.

>

This is probably true, as I think Huckabee is probably the one who might've beaten him (and that's a big might). Anyway, I was just using the race as an example. Do you see our party making half-assed attempts like this to bail out candidates who are trailing in the polls (ok, there is the California write-in thing, but that's just speculation right now)? The fact is, your side HAD a chance to get rid of Toricelli...YOU DIDN'T TAKE IT. Why can't you just play fair?

If the GOP is smart, they will definitely get back at the Democrats for this...

Sorry...meant to put this at the top..

As for Hutchinson- The GOP had there chance to pick Duggar but either way it would of been a Pyor victory.

jdw: The more I think about it, the more I think the NJ law is poorly written or downright un-Constitutional, with regards to the 30-day window. Either that, or it is only meant to be enforced that way prior to the end of a normal 6-year term (i.e. any year other than the year in which the 6-year term is up).

I don't think states have the right to hold Senatorial elections whenever they want. Doesn't the US Constitution mandate that they all be equally divided such that one-third come up every two years? If states could re-position them around based on unusual circumstances such as this, you'd eventually end up with 44 Senate states up one year, and only 20 up the next cycle. That's clearly not the Constitutional intent. That's why this year's election in Missouri will only extend the term to 2006, not 2008.

After thinking about this some, I think the Dems' only chance here is to try and get that Sept. 16 date changed for getting Torricelli off the ballot. Either that or leave his name on the ballot and have him run as proxy for someone else (Lautenberg, etc.).

RWG says: "I have to congratulate your party though...you're sneaky. We're nowhere near as savvy (if we were, we would dump Hutchinson!)"

What are you talking about? The GOP stole a PRESIDENTIAL election. This is small fries compared to the heist you guys pulled off two years ago!

And the GOP are the last people to talk about disenfranchising voters. I would rather see a replacement candidate compete in November, but what is it about Republicans that they can dish it out, but god forbid they are ever on the receiving end?

Clearly, the Nov. 5 election for Senate in NJ cannot be canceled. If Torricelli resigned, his replacement could only serve until the expiration of the term - Jan. 2003 - and not until Jan. 2005. Otherwise, this election could theoretically be postponed forever if the succeeding incumbents just resigned right before the election. The law referred to seems to me to apply if, say Jon Corzine resigned two weeks from now, and therefore, McGreevey would appoint a replacement, but would not have to call an election for Corzine's seat this year, but could wait until 2004.

I think the best choice to replace Torricelli is Bradley, for three reasons: if Republicans win in the courts, his name is the most widely known and the easiest to spell for a write-in campaign; I doubt Torricelli would stand for a Lautenberg bid; also, Bradley's reputation is pure enough that Republican charges of a Dem back-room deal won't be as plausible against Bradley. Unfortunately, I'm not sure he would want to do it. My second choice is Andrews - running unopposed for Congress and another easy name.

"unless the governor of this state shall deem it advisable to call a special election therefore"

This is what would happen. The law seems to be used for such circumstances as the death of a candidate (though it doesn't only include this circumstance) as the GOP is arguing that it's only applicable for.

The GOP is also arguing that Toricelli cannot be replaced on the ballot. This is what appears most unclear.

PBS: You've got it exactly right. That was the same line of thinking I had going when I posted up above. If the NJ law is correct and constitutional as written (and I don't think it is), it would mean the state's sitting Governor could dicatate the occupant of the Senate seat in perpetuem, without the need of EVER holding an election.

And wouldn't it be funny if Arkansas had the same law. In response to Torricelli's resignation, the GOP could get Hutchinson to resign, and then Gov. Huckabee could appoint a 2-year replacement. :)

Till ROC-Indy posted,I was wondering where everybodys head was as to the 30 day thing.It clearly is unconstitutional through and through if it wasnt taken out of context.

Anyway,Im am very interested in what Torecelli decides to do in an hour.

EDIT:The fact that a senate election having 8 years space between it was what is clearly un flyable with the constitution.

Do you see our party making half-assed attempts like this to bail out candidates who are trailing in the polls (ok, there is the California write-in thing, but that's just speculation right now)? The fact is, your side HAD a chance to get rid of Toricelli...YOU DIDN'T TAKE IT. Why can't you just play fair?

If the GOP is smart, they will definitely get back at the Democrats for this...>

And if the Dems pull this trick off, I've got three words for goopers: get over it!

I hope this scenario unfolds and that Toricelli is wise enough for the good of the country to resign (a Republican Senate would mean disaster) and then I believe McGreevey should appoint Bradbury (not Lautenberg). But alas I don't think the Torch will do this and he'll be beaten in november, perhaps costing the dems the Senate majority...

ROC-Indy: Your earlier post did call this correctly. I'd imagine the reason this press conference keeps getting pushed back is the Dems are trying to figure out the law themselves. If they can't replace Torricelli on the ballot, he will have to run, promising to resign right after he's sworn in to a second term, thereby allowing McGreevey to appoint somebody.

If Arkansas had a similar law, Huckabee would probably try to appoint his wife!

Note!

If there is an election due to resignation, it is a special election, not a regular election.

The September 16th deadline would therefore presumably be voided, and the relevant sections of New Jersey law regarding special elections would take over.

That is my humble opinion.

I think, though, that if Torricelli resigned, a special election would only cover the remainder of his term (from now to January 2003). The general election for the term that begins in January 2003, I believe, still has to take place this November.

Re: Torch and NJ State Law 19:3-26. The way I read it, this law is relevant only if Torch RESIGNS or DIES, thereby creating a "vacancy." There's no indication that Torch plans to do either prior to Nov. 5th. He's just going to serve out his term.

IF Torch WERE to resign within 30 days of the election, the law would give the Dems the seat for 2 more years, by allowing the governor an interim appointment. It's certainly tempting, but I doubt the Dems (or Torch) have the "cojones" to go for it. Bigtime risk of backlash.

Torricelli announced that he will not resign, but will not run for reelection.
But what's this about Bill Bradley going back to the Senate?

The Dems learned that stealing an election is sometimes necessary! I say go for it!

Stealing an election is dirty no matter who does it. This is unfair and cheap. Torricelli filed for reelection and went through the primary, so he should have to stay on the ballot and be the nominee. Democrats should not sink to the level of the Bushes (I had to work a partisan comment in there). Anyway, I don't like this at all.

Torricelli dropping out is not unfair to the Republicans and this is not stealing an election. This law works both ways. If the Republicans now fear they won't be able to win, they can replace Forrester with Tom Kean or Christie Whitman. I know they won't do that, but just because they won't do that doesn't mean what the Dems are doing is unfair.

Fair? Lets talk about fair.By that logic Katharine Harris should be barred from running for the House of Representatives in Florida since she was still acting as Secretary of State 15 days after she was supposed to resign from office in order to declare. If Torricelli isn't allowed to drop out and be replaced now because of these recent court decisions and media exposes that undercut his ability to run on the issues then its only fair that Harris should not be allowed to run in Florida. And we know that the court did let Harris run anyway.

"What are you talking about? The GOP stole a PRESIDENTIAL election. This is small fries compared to the heist you guys pulled off two years ago!"

We dumped our candidate after they won their nomination and after deadlines for getting someone else on the ballot had passed? I don't remember doing that!

Anyway, you Democrats have created a new strategy, which years from now will be called the "New Jersey Maneuver"! Your candidate's behind in the polls? Just replace him with someone better! It doesn't matter if they won a primary or that the deadline for replacing their name on the ballot has passed, you can just pull the "New Jersey Maneuver" and win!

I say the Republicans should pull out one of their candidates who are trailing in the polls...too bad we'll have a hard time beating Pryor in Arkansas with any candidate. Maybe we could do it in Texas?

RWG--I have a great idea to keep Texas senate seat GOP. Get George W. Bush to resign the presidency and run for the senate in Texas. I guarantee he will win in a landslide!

That sounds ok to me Ga6thDem.

1. Bush runs for the Senate and wins (and hopefully can carry Perry to victory as well)
2. President Cheney appoints Bush VP
3. Cheney resigns, making Bush president again
4. Bush appoints Cheney VP
5. Perry appoints Cornyn to Senate seat vacated by Bush
6. Democrats whine like the little punks they are because they don't have a majority in the Senate anymore

Yep...it's ok by me. Only downfall would be if Sanchez won the governorship, which seems pretty unlikely with Bush on the ticket.

Wouldn't the Democratic Senate have to approve of GW Bush? That would be really interesting.

RWG--you guys really don't believe in elections do you! You have 4 appointments and only 1 ELECTION!!

We don't believe in elections? You are the ones trying to steal the New Jersey Senate race..."Oh no, our candidate is trailing in the polls, but we can replace him!"

Good God, do you know what would happen if every single candidate trailing in the polls dropped out and were replaced? It would be pretty chaotic!

Anyway, I only think we should do that in Texas as REVENGE for NJ...otherwise, I'm for fair elections all around.

In typical Democrat fashion if they can't win change the rules ( LAW). Like immature children they cry do over. FYI Like it or not Al Gore lost the presidential election it was not stolen. In fact it was the dems that tried to steal the election. The democrats designed the ballot not the republicans. As in all elections there will be ballots disqualified. After the last presidential election the results were analized with a fine tooth comb and there was only one scenario which Al would have won the election --that was if he would have accepted the compromise by George Bush. Palm beach was not the only county with voting irregularities however, it was the only strong Democratic county. Let every vote count was the cry but remember Al did not think that the men and woman in the military deserved to have their absentee ballots counted.

If I recall, the incumbent Senator of New Jersey resigned his office. The voters of New Jersey deserve a choice. How is that undemocratic?

MM: Actually, if all the legal votes were counted, including the overvotes which have a candidate's name and the SAME candidate in the write-in line, Al Gore had more of them regardless of what standard was used for punch cards etc. That's what the consortium report found.

Vlajos: Torricelli did not resign; he just withdrew from next month's Senate election. Unless he declares otherwise, Torricelli will be senator until January 2003.