The explanation

Since this one was a local issue, here's the synopsis: in the 2002 NJ Senate Race, ethically clouded incumbent Democratic senator Robert Torricelli announced a month prior to the election that he was withdrawing from his re-election race, assumed by almost all due to overwhelming drops in the polls, largely due to the constant pressure from his Republican opponent Doug Forrester who made near-daily reminders of Torricelli's ethical issues in his press statements.

The running gag being that the Republican opponent's name was actually "Doug NotTorricelli," it came as no suprise that the GOP cried foul when the NJ-DNC announced that only 31 days before the election the now-vacant ticket would be filled by former Senator (and ridiculously popular) Frank Lautenberg.

Suing to prevent the name change on the ballots, the GOP legally filed that the deadline to change candidates had passed- indeed it had, yet essentially the Republicans were suing to demand that a candidate who publicly announced his refusal to run for office be listed as the Democratic candidate.

The irony of all this was noted by both myself and others when it was discovered that not only had the GOP used similar arguments to put Forrester on their ticket earlier in the year, but in fact used nearly the exact same legal precedent to do so that they were now challenging.

The State Court ruled in favor of the whole "best for Democracy" angle and Lautenberg, expectedly, won the Senate race, but not before ending what many considered the most ridiculous and corrupt political battle in state history. And for New Jersey, that means a lot.

August J. Pollak - Some Guy With a Website