We Told You So

So, here we go again. Excuse me, and the rest of the Republican Party for pointing this out, but we told you so.

Yet again, a Democratic candidate for office has withdrawn from the campaign well after the statutory deadline for being replaced and, yet again, our Supreme Court will likely be called upon to determine whether the law means what it says. Of course, this time, we pretty much know the answer: the law does NOT mean what it says, it means what the Supreme Court wants it to mean.

Let us recap. New Jersey statute provides, in unambiguous language, that a candidate for election to office may be replaced on the ballot if a vacancy occurs, for any reason, not less than 51 days before an election. The statute goes on to provide that a replacement candidate “…shall be selected not later than the 48th day preceding the date of the general election.” Simple enough. If something happens to a candidate 51 days or more before a general election, that vacancy may be filled not later than 48 days prior to the election.

And let us be clear about something else: NEW JERSEY LAW DOES NOT PERMIT REPLACEMENT OF A CANDIDATE ON THE BALLOT AFTER 48 DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION. PERIOD.

In a world populated by people who respect the law and appreciate the essential difference between legislation and adjudication, one might ponder the result in the situation in which a candidate withdraws within 51 days of the date of the election. One might assert that the Legislature, not being completely thick—certainly no less swift than the Court—intended that a party which nominates a candidate who turns out to be a rogue is stuck with him. In any event, the proper response would be: to the extent that the Legislature created this window, it is incumbent upon the Legislature to close it. But our would is not populated by such folks; it is populated by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Faced with the virtual certainty that they would lose a United States Senate seat deemed crucial for any hope of retaining control over that body, Democrats persuaded the ethically illiterate Robert Torricelli to step down a scant month before the election. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, replacing him on the ballot was illegal; the statute could not be clearer. The Legislature had spoken unequivocally. But, it did not say the words the Democrats wanted to hear. So they scurried off to a friendlier mouthpiece, the aforementioned Supreme Court.

In unfortunately typical display of judicial arrogance, the Court permitted Torricelli’s name to be replaced on the ballot with that of Frank Lautenberg. First, that august body intoned piously that when the literal reading of a statute—that is to say, employing the English language to determine what it is that the Legislature meant to do—produces a result with which the Court disagrees, the language will be ignored in favor of the “spirit,” which “spirit,” of course, inevitably produces the result at which the Court wishes to arrive.

All this, assertedly, to give the electorate “a choice.” Of course, they HAD choice, nothing prevented the name of the duly nominated candidate from appearing on the ballot. And changing horses at the tail end of the campaign is patently unfair to the opposition, who spent huge amounts of time and money campaigning against someone no longer in the race.

The point being that as between the Legislature’s view of fairness, as expressed in the clear language of the statute, and that of the Court, in a world in which the people get to govern themselves through duly elected representatives, the view of the Legislature prevails. Put another way, the Legislature decided not to permit last minute substitutions, perhaps out of respect for the process, perhaps out of concern for “October surprises.” As last year demonstrated, that concern was entirely justifiable.

And the Court simply ignored it, substituting its own quirky view of “fairness” for that the duly elected representatives of the people enshrined in the statute.

History, of course, now repeats itself. The New Jersey Senate, split 20-20, hangs in the balance, the general election to be held 40 days hence. Once again, a Democratic candidate finds himself in a stew of his own making. Once again, it appears as if a crucial election could be lost as a result of the Democrats nominating a candidate who self destructs. And so, once again, the Democrats—despite the clear, unambiguous wording of the statute, will attempt to replace a candidate on the general election ballot AFTER the statutory deadline.

And, once again, we can be reasonably certain that reason—and the rule of law as opposed to rule by judges—will not prevail. One cannot expect this Court to retreat from a precedent only one year old, however idiotic the reasoning therein might have been. Hope springs eternal, though, that the Torricelli decision, made in haste, might be repented at leisure, that the Court, with a year to mull over the arrogance inherent in its usurpation of the Legislative role, might admit its mistake, beg the State’s pardon, and enforce the law as written.

Don’t hold your breath.

The people of the 22nd District still have a choice: they can vote for the candidate the Democrats nominated in June, or not, as the case may be. If the “withdrawing” candidate wins, he can refuse the honor of service and his Party could chose a replacement. THAT has the benefit of consistency with the unequivocal, undebatable language of the law. It requires no searching inquiry for the illusive “spirit” allegedly present in the statute which permits a Court to arrive at a conclusion diametrically opposed to that which the language clearly compels.