The surprising decision of Sen. Robert G. Torricelli (D-NJ) to drop his reelection bid only 36 days before the general election has made the fight for the U.S. Senate even more bitter. With control hanging on a single vote, each party has an immense interest in the outcome of the New Jersey contest. Unwilling to concede the race, the Democrats have attempted to substitute former Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg for Torricelli on the ballot—a move that outraged Republicans, who challenged the tactic in court. But in this case the New Jersey Supreme Court was right to decide, unanimously, that the voters have a compelling interest in a competitive election.

As the New Jersey Supreme Court rightly decided, election law does not prohibit the replacement of a name on the ballot at such a late date. The law is silent on the procedure for filling a vacancy later than 51 days before the election, which gives the court the right to decide the appropriate procedure. As a result, the court—which includes two Republicans—was right to interpret the election laws liberally in order to create a “full and fair ballot choice for the people of New Jersey.” The entire point of an election is to let voters decide between the candidates; when one candidate drops out, even at such a late stage, all possible steps ought to be taken to ensure that the voters have a real choice on election day.

The Republican appeal to the United States Supreme Court is a reasonable move, as state law is admittedly unclear on the correct procedure in this case. The Supreme Court ought to hear the case expeditiously and render a decision to set a clear precedent for the future.

Clearly, this course of action is not ideal for any party—not for Lautenberg, who will not have enough of a chance to make his case to the people of New Jersey; not to Republican Douglas R. Forrester ’75, who now has a new opponent; and least of all to the people of New Jersey, who will not have the opportunity to evaluate Lautenberg over the course of an extended campaign. It would have been far preferable for Torricelli to drop out of the race before the Democratic primary, so the voters themselves could have chosen the Democratic nominee. But considering the current situation, New Jersey’s voters deserved an extremely short campaign over no election at all.

Dissent: Torching the Law

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision to replace Senator Torricelli and undermine state election law is incorrect and should be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court before it sets the precedent of replacing unpopular candidates late in electoral cycles. While a replacement would be justified in the case of death or incapacitation, the Staff is wrong to legitimize such a politically motivated bait-and-switch on the grounds of “voter choice.” Democratic elections do not represent choice for the sake of choice, but rather voters acting upon informed choice; this is why, for example, states hold primaries. More importantly, democracy is based upon a strict adherence to the rule of law. Manipulating established laws at times of political convenience serves to undermine the democratic process.

—Duncan M. Currie ’04, Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero ’04, Paul C. Schultz ’03, Luke Smith ’04 and Andrew P. Winerman ’03