Democrat Frank Lautenberg: Bad for Democracy

As we go to the polls today we should be concerned not only about a candidate's position on the issues (if, by some miracle he has one) but also about the effects of his or her election on the electoral process. That's the problem with Frank Lautenberg.

New Jersey has a reputation for ugly politics: Acting-Governor Donnie DiFrancesco dropping out of last year's governor's race because of a scandal involving — you guessed it! — improprieties in allocating state contracts. Newark Mayor Sharpe James race-baiting his way to victory over challenger and fellow African-American Cory Booker. Senator Robert Torricelli's colossal corruption. With leaders like these, it easy to conclude that something is rotten in the Garden State.

Indeed, Torricelli's case is indicative of the voters' frustration. The senior Senator from New Jersey went into the campaign against challenger Doug Forrester with a 15-point lead in the polls. "The Torch" was soon flickering as Forrester hammered him on ethics issues like his thousands of dollars in illegal contributions and gifts from shady businessman David Chang who paid the Senator to lobby U.S. and South Korean officials on behalf of his business interests. There was something particularly vulgar about this corruption, too, as Torricelli was walking about wearing luxury suits and watches that Chang provided.

With defeat likely, Torricelli backed out of the race at the end of September with the last pathetic swan song that he was proud to have "changed people's lives." (Presumably the Senator was referring to Chang's life. Chang was sentenced to 18 months in jail for obstruction of justice.) This was not, however, the end of the story. A small cadre of Democratic Party officials decided to replace Torricelli with a new candidate. After intense backroom maneuvering the party elders settled on one of their own, retired 78-year old Senator Frank Lautenberg.

Although both current candidates are preferable to Torricelli, Forrester is superior. Lautenberg has been accused of making his own efforts of Chang's behalf and was fined a record $27,000 by the Federal Election Commission for accepting illegal contributions in 1997. New Jersey's moderate voters will certainly prefer Forrester's strong focus on defense and national security issues to Lautenberg's desperate wriggling away from his vote against the Gulf War. Forrester's pro-choice stand on abortion will also make him appealing to moderates and women.

Lautenberg's selection prompted an outcry from the Forrester camp. They pointed to New Jersey's election law, which clearly mandates that if a candidate wishes to withdraw he must do so 51 days before the election. By the time Torricelli dropped out there were exactly 34 days left. Forrester's attorney's argued that Lautenberg's selection was a violation of voters' rights on account of the absence of a primary and the many absentee ballots that were now invalidated. The New Jersey Supreme Court waived the law, however, and permitted Lautenberg to run.

Democrats ought to think twice about voting for Lautenberg, whose selection (I do not say "nomination") has some disturbing implications. The problem is that a vote for Lautenberg would legitimize an undemocratic procedure. Doug Forrester was nominated through a primary election in which rank and file Republican voters got to choose whom they wanted to represent them. Likewise, Torricelli was a candidate by the choice of the voters. Lautenberg, in contrast, owes his status as a candidate to the very sort of smoky back-room deal that primaries were instituted to prevent. New Jersey's democrats were assigned a candidate without any opportunity to exercise choice.

The old adage that rights, which are not used, are lost holds true: Insofar as Republicans did have the choice to vote in a primary, democrats have been comparatively disenfranchised.

Nor did the small and secret negotiations at the governor's Drumthwacket mansion even attempt to reflect the diversity of New Jersey's Democratic party. Even Bonnie Watson Coleman, the State Democratic Committee Chairperson and an African-American woman, was excluded from Governor McGreevey's secret caucus. Grass roots leaders, particularly in the African-American community, are understandably upset at their exclusion from the selection process. Speaking to the Associated Press, the Rev. Reginald Jackson, executive director of the Black Ministers Council, said that the exclusion of African-Americans was "an insult and an affront to the African-American community." Rev. Jackson went even further, arguing, (probably correctly) that the governor's inner circle was taking black voters for granted, saying that "The good ol' white boys network still wants to run things, we don't seem important to them, except when it comes to voter turnout."

Unfortunately for Rev. Jackson and his community, Lautenberg's respect for the voters' independence or intelligence seems to be low. Rather than talk about issues his strategy seems to be to float by on party identification alone. Compounding the undemocratic nature of his candidacy, he has reneged on his original agreement to debate Forrester 21 times, once in each county of the state.

New Jersey's voters — and especially democrats — would do themselves a disservice by electing Lautenberg. His refusal to debate on issues and his cavalier assumption that the party will be there for him, primary or no, make him a far from appealing choice for U.S. Senator. Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky is a Wilson School major from New York, N.Y. He can be reached at cr@princeton.edu.