In 1990, the Minnesota Republicans made the unfortunate discovery that their nominee for governor, family-values conservative Jon Grunseth, was a pedophile. With only eight days left on the clock, the ruling Democrats let them change the ballots, knowing full well they would have a harder time against the popular new competitor, Arne Carlson.
Democrats didn't think it fair to cakewalk to a victory by default and allowed the Republicans, under vague state law, to put up somebody new who then defeated their incumbent, preserving choice for the voters. Republicans celebrated the victory snatched from defeat, and Carlson served for two terms. Now a similar situation has arisen in my home state of New Jersey five weeks before the election, and Republicans sure are acting differently right now.
Some weeks ago I mentioned my home state Sen. Robert \The Torch"" Torricelli, D-N.J., and said he was headed for a likely re-election. What I didn't count on was further evidence of all his ethical improprieties, such as prosecutors' memos, internal campaign documents, etc., to become public and for The Torch's poll ratings to plummet. He took such ""gifts"" from donors as a Rolex, Armani suits, a widescreen television and a plethora of other clear bribes.
The Torch finally realized that his years of ethics scandals render him unelectable in the otherwise Democratic state, and he has only barely dodged federal indictment.
He has withdrawn from his bid for re-election and New Jersey Democrats have further rubbed his nose in it by selecting his worst enemy, retired three-term Sen. Frank Lautenberg, to take his place. The New Jersey Supreme Court, appointed by a Republican governor, unanimously upheld the switch based on the construction of state law and long-standing precedents in New Jersey.
One does have to feel sorry for the Republican nominee, businessman Doug Forrester, who spent millions of his own money on this race and was poised to win by a landslide, and there certainly is a worry that ""tag-teaming"" could become a major strategy for parties in the future. However, this is entirely a political question, not a matter of interpreting current law. If it becomes too prevalent, states will restrict it, just as Minnesota did after the 1990 race. If ""pulling a Torricelli"" is so repugnant to democracy, the voters will not send Lautenberg back for a fourth term.
One might expect the Republicans to value the role of states' rights in federalism and let the ruling stand, getting on with the new race just as Minnesota Democrats did in 1990. Not at all. Republicans went to federal court, contending that the Supreme Court can overrule a state court's reading of state election law.
Taken to its logical conclusion, this spurious legal argument would mean that no state government has any reserved power under the constitution. If a federal court can butt in on a state court's reading of a state law, then states have not the slightest sphere of autonomy and America is a unitary and not federal state. To see this constitutional argument originating from conservatives over a single seat in the Senate is certainly amusing. The U.S. Supreme Court, not wanting to touch this case with a 10-foot pole, denied the Republican appeal without comment.
This is a great example of how some politicians use words like ""big government"" and ""states' rights"" as a smokescreen for their policy preferences. They expect more conservative policies at the state level than federal. When this is not true, they appeal to a strong federal government. Thus John Ashcroft will file on federal grounds to nullify Oregon's assisted suicide law, approved by referendum twice and Democrats will plead for states having the final say in such a case. The funny thing is, Republicans tend to appeal to ideas like local control a lot more, even though their ideas can be every bit in favor of an overarching federal government if it furthers policies of the right.
In addition to providing the sort of political and cultural craziness that makes me so proud, New Jersey has provided an object lesson in how false the talk of states versus the federal government is in politics. While there certainly are good policy arguments whether certain programs should be created and what level of government they ought to be located at, it's unfortunate that politicians almost never actually mean that question when they talk about such conflicts.
