Monmouth County Democrats have shrouded the selection of an Assembly candidate to replace Marilyn Schlossbach in the 11th legislative district in more secrecy than a Koch Brothers convention.
They won’t even say where and when the convention to vote on a candidate will be. Campaign Manager Vlad Gutman said the convention will be “on Wednesday, somewhere in the district.”
MMM has learned that the convention will be Wednesday, 6:30PM at the Asbury Park VFW.
Democratic County Committee members from the district are being called and urged to attend the convention which requires, under Title 19, a quorum of 50% plus 1 of the committee members in order to select a candidate. While they are scrambling to get a quorum, the Democrats are also scrambling to find a candidate. No mention of potential candidates is being made on the calls to the committee members and no one will say who is under consideration or who has thrown their hat into the ring.
Schlossbach’s withdrawal was a big blow to the Democrats’ slim hopes of picking up Assembly seats in Monmouth County. An internal Democratic poll indicated that Schlossbach had the highest name recognition of all Assembly candidates, including incumbents Mary Pat Angelini and Caroline Casagrande. While Schlossbach’s name recognition was superior, the poll indicated that the Republican team of Senator Jennifer Beck, Angelini and Casagrande are heavy favorites to win in November. Beck’s name recognition and favorables in the district are huge.
Despite a voter registration advantage in the district, the Democrats have a very thin bench. Elected officials like Red Bank Councilman Michael Dupont, Long Branch Councilman John Pallone (brother of the congressman), Neptune Township Deputy Mayor Randy Bishop and Eatontown Mayor Gerald Tarantolo all declined to run for the legislature back in April when the slate of Ray Santiago for Senate, Schlossbach and Vin Gopal for Assembly, all seeking their first elected office, was chosen by the party. Now that the summer fund raising season has past and polling has been done, the district looks less winnable for Democrats than it did it April, making it less likely that an experienced politico with a base will step up to replace Schlossbach.
Also complicating the Democrats task of finding an Assembly candidate, Santiago and Gopal have made support of gay marriage a central theme of their campaign. If marriage equality is a litmus test, finding a new candidate will be even more difficult.
Fund raising will be difficult whoever the Democrats nominate, with the possible exception of John Pallone who could tab his brother’s special interest supporters. Beck is dominating the fund raising race in the district by both raising money for her team and discouraging donors from contributing to her opponents. Beck called Cory Booker this week to express her displeasure over the fact that the Newark Mayor is headlining a fundraiser for Gopal later this month in Colts Neck.
The Democrats will probably come up with a nominee, if they get a quorum at the convention. Whoever it is will be taking one for the team and will probably get a new job or appointment some time in the next year.
The problem with that is that is that the bill hasn’t been written yet. Obama launched his reelection campaign in earnest Thursday night in an address to a joint session of congress that proposed a 1/2 trillion in spending. He said it would be paid for, but didn’t say how.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich, hardly a Tea Party radical “determined to dismantle government and its vital programs piece by piece” said he would have to see the bill before deciding whether to vote for or against it.
I never would have thought that I’d be writing that Kucinich exhibits more sanity than my hometown newspaper.
If you’re like many Americans, it’s too early to be thinking about the presidential contest next year. Even if you are aware of some of the candidates running, chances are you’re not glued to the set watching the early debates. Last night’s MSNBC sponsored GOP debate was interesting though. I managed to catch a few minutes of it and although I thought Romney was particularly sharp and Rick Perry made a very good case as a solid conservative, it was clear why the current field leaves something to be desired among many in the Republican Party. A former George W. Bush speechwriter said this past weekend that “I don’t think Republicans regard this as a strong field. So there is still talk of people getting in the race.”
Let’s forget all the conventional reasons why there is a lack of excitement from the current cadre of presidential hopefuls. Romney has a problem effectively discussing the failings of Obama-care given his own health care bill in Massachusetts, add to that his 59 point economic plan…59 points? I’m worried there might be a test at the end! Governor Perry, although articulating many strong conservative principles, has the challenge of the latest critique of his Texas job creation efforts through government subsidies and ‘poaching’ from other states; there’s Bachman’s lack of executive experience and Ron Paul’s difficulty overcoming the fringe label among many voters. Gingrich, Huntsman, Santorum and Cain round out the field but lack funding and have thus far failed to light a spark among earlier likely primary voters.
Despite the short-comings of the top-tier, they may all be able to put up an effective fight simply based on the current economy and the President’s own poor performance. Mishandling the economic crisis; the deepening of unemployment and under-employment; vast expanse of government beyond what it palatable for the average taxpayer; and out-of-control debt have all contributed to a general lack of enthusiasm for his re-election in recent polls. That said the GOP is very skilled at the art of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Only a candidate with the courage to polarize the electorate on the issues and present a stark contrast with the Democratic incumbent will win. We need someone to unapologetically pursue a new policy course focused on economic growth and individual liberty in order to win.
The first step is to challenge the conventional wisdom that our nominee needs to be a conciliator and a unifier instead of a polarizer by looking at the facts of history. There are plenty of successful Presidents who ran in the center and then governed from their partisan corner. Then there are a few who campaigned from a solid partisan position, specifically outlining an enemy, who won decisive victories.
President Reagan, President George W. Bush and President Clinton were highly partisan political leaders creating vehement opposition from the other side. Each had the polarizing effect of a wide gap between the support of members of their own party and the lack of support among voters in the other party as they entered the second year in office. See Poll Results
And each were winners of a second term because they appealed to the core of their own party and created enough momentum to show strong leadership on the issue of the day which won over the average voter who only pays attention at the end.
Obama, like his predecessors, has embraced the role of polarizer-in-chief as he knows that his success is dependent on his aggressive far-left agenda energizing the core of the Democratic base. As long as he offers some hope for a recovery and continues to redistribute your wealth he’s got a good shot at keeping the job.
That same zeal on the side of individual liberty and economic growth is the only way for a Republican challenger to have a chance of unseating this administration. Why is it that the Democrats are unafraid to be aggressive champions of their big government ideology while Republicans more often look for a middle ground thinking that they will appeal to everyone? Democrats like Obama and Clinton understood the value of the base and the importance of ‘dividing and conquering’ the electorate. Bush understood that as well when he stood for re-election in 2004 and certainly President Reagan understood the value when he used divisive terms like ‘welfare queens’ and ‘evil empire’.
Perhaps the best model to view for the upcoming election are the three Presidents who, in addition to causing divisiveness while in office, actually campaigned successfully by exploiting a major issue of the day and defining a clear position outlining the ‘enemy’.
Abraham Lincoln took a strong anti-slavery position and campaigned on stopping its expansion. His position was so strong the half the states threatened to secede if he won and then followed through. 1860 Campaign
Franklin Roosevelt ran a campaign pointing the finger at the ‘economic royalists’ and laid out a very effective populist campaign that defined the enemy as greedy businessmen and changed the country in a direction that set up the great expanse of government today. 1936 Speech
Ronald Reagan campaigned as a strong anti-communist defining the foreign enemy effectively and readying the nation to capitalize on their weak economic position. He also effectively defined the domestic enemy as government itself. 1980 Campaign
All of these men faced defining moments in American history, the Civil War, The Great Depression and the Cold War respectively. America is again confronted with a generational crisis that will have a resonating impact for decades to come.
The economic crisis today is beyond the dreadful employment numbers and slow growth. It encompasses the vast expanse of government that has put our nation perilously close to the tipping point of having more Americans taking from the government than paying to sustain it. If that happens and the Democrats feel secure knowing that entitlement benefit receivers outnumber working, taxpaying Americans, don’t expect a conciliatory or unifying tone from the other side.
Current polling shows that the economy and jobs is and will likely continue to be the number one issue heading into the next Presidential election. With nearly one in ten Americans out of work and another nearly one in ten working at a job that is insufficient to sustain a modest family’s standard of living, we’re in serious trouble.
The Democratic solution – which unfortunately has been aided and abetted by some weak, compromising Republicans in Washington – is to spend more of your tax dollars through new ‘stimulus’ spending – err sorry, just saw the White House talking points – it’s now ‘jobs’ spending. We’ve seen the failure of increased government spending under the current administration as well as the last Republican administration. Not only is this an economically ruinous course to take, but every dollar the government spends to ‘create jobs’ is not wealth created, it’s a dollar redistributed by coercion. Of course the American people are starting to ‘get it’ and the anger that is growing among taxpayers regarding the over-reach and failure of these policies is becoming palpable. Many Americans seem ready to fire the President but simply won’t replace him with someone who will be perceived to do more of the same.
It’s one reason that Governor Christie is talked about as a potential top contender. His brash style, aggressive decision making and willingness to take on tough fights has some Democrats in New Jersey speaking positively about his administration around the water cooler. There hasn’t been a more successful polarizing figure in recent New Jersey history than Governor Christie. He hasn’t taken on the role of chief conciliator with the teachers and public workers unions. He’s stepped up and taken on the role of chief agitator and walked away with several key victories for the taxpayers. Christie’s success is contrary to conventional wisdom about reconciling and being palatable to the other side. He’s a fighter pure and simple and is earning the respect of former foes because of his unapologetic style and aggressive pursuit of solving problems. He’s a straight talker who isn’t posturing for image and acceptance. Instead he’s going for the jugular of those forces that are bankrupting the state and destroying the economic future for the next generation.
If it’s working in a blue state like New Jersey, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a nearly two-to-one margin, it can certainly work in swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Florida and New Hampshire where the registration numbers are much closer. Although a more moderate, conciliatory Republican may fare better in states like New Jersey, we’re likely to lose those states and do worse than expected in the swing states unless we energize the folks who are suffering the most with the current economy. The game plan in 2012 can’t be to earn the respect and admiration of the Democrats who will vote against us anyway. We need to be on the right side of history and champion the free market ideas that are the only way to create a robust and productive economy -and secure our future liberty.
This is not the time to play nice with the side who has levied on us the highest tax and debt burden in our history. This is not the time to play nice with the leaders on the other side whose agenda is not economic growth and freedom but the destruction of the very core of our capitalist system. Big government and debt are the goals of the other side. It’s time to take a stand and choose sides.
Of course Governor Christie has emphatically repeated that he is not going to be a candidate in 2012. Given his track record, I think it’s a safe bet to take him at his word. Without Governor Christie there is only one other Republican leader with the same style of tough talk and conservative record with the ability to deliver the message and energize the party as we haven’t seen since Ronald Reagan, former governor Sarah Palin. Her Iowa speech recently was an outright attack on the ‘crony capitalists’ who are turning profits with the aid of the taxpayers. She’s correctly stated that these are not champions of capitalism creating growth in the economy – instead they are parasites earning a living off of government bailouts and subsidies. Palin rightly attacks those businesses which have benefited from tax loopholes and redistributed wealth from taxpayers. She’s got a long history of success with her aggressive style challenging conventional wisdom and fighting entrenched government. She’s taken on the tough fights in her own party and won. Her leadership and decision making helped create a strong economy in Alaska. She’s rooted out corruption and stood firm in the face of criticism and every kind of vitriol thrown her way. She’s got executive and life experience necessary to be an effective commander-in-chief. Family values, patriotism and an unapologetic approach to supporting our military and putting the interest of America first in the world.
The country needs leadership, and we’re overdue for a tough talking sheriff not afraid to act who will get to Washington and clean up the mess left by years of apologetic and weak Republicans and big government Democrats.
Palin is already a champion of the right policies that will restore a growth economy nationally creating sustainable employment and revenue. She’s got the courage, conviction and charisma necessary to polarize the electorate enough to win.
The good news is that Americans are slowly waking up from the Obama-induced slumber that allowed government to explode overnight and not especially pleased with what they see.
We cannot fear standing up and aggressively fighting those political elites that would ruin our economy and create the ‘shared scarcity’ that Congressman Paul Ryan warned of in a speech in Chicago a few months ago. We cannot fear stepping up to the plate with a contentious, strong willed, leader to articulate the position of the taxpayer who is on the hook for the debt and the future liability of a nation of dependents. Instead we should embrace the opportunity and select a nominee who will be unafraid to champion the free market…unafraid to put American interests first…unafraid to take the beating that will surely come from the political and media elite.
PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVE’S BRIEF VALIDATES KEEPING SUBSTATION OPEN; SAYS POST
OFFICE’S DECISION TO CLOSE IS “SERIOUSLY FLAWED”
A recent brief by the federal Public Representative called the U.S.
Post Office’s decision to close the Lafayette substation in Freehold Borough
“seriously flawed,” validating local residents who rely on the facility and want
it to remain open, Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande said today.
“The Post Office’s reasons to close Lafayette are unfounded and do
not stand up to any objective scrutiny,” Casagrande, R-Monmouth and Mercer,
said. “Freehold Borough is a pedestrian community and the county seat of
Monmouth County. This facility is vital to many businesses and people who cannot
easily reach the Freehold Township Post Office, which is inaccessible to
pedestrians.
“Congressman Chris Smith has led to effort to keep this office open
and the Public Representative has validated his work,” Casagrande added. “Keep
the substation open.”
The Public Representative also said the Post Office’s “economic
justification is seriously flawed and requires further consideration and
explanation [.] revenues are over 4 times the magnitude of the alleged cost
savings relied upon by the Postal Service. This is not a facility that was
losing money. But for the fact that the trailer was in substandard condition,
this was a viable postal facility.”
“The substation generates revenue four times the amount that the
Postal Service estimates it will save by shutting it down,” Casagrande said.
“It’s clear why the Post Office is failing because they choose to shut down
offices that are actually making money.
“There are plenty of great spaces available for lease in downtown
Freehold Borough would make perfect postal facilities,” Casagrande added. “I
invite Postal officials down to take a look at them.”
By Dan Jacobson, also published in the September 9 edition of the triCityNews
I just can’t help myself.
When there’s an angle to a controversy that no one else will touch, I’ve got to reach out and grab it with both hands.
I just can’t stand it when a media horde goes off hell bent in one direction and misses a big part of a story. Add in a scrum of politicians riding the wave for their own advantage, and I get sucked in that much more.
I just call it like I see it. That’s what I’ve always done as a Publisher. It’s what I’m doing now as an Independent candidate for the State Assembly.
So let’s get the controversy going with the state’s new anti-bullying law, which took effect in our schools on September 1.
Passed overwhelmingly by the state legislature and signed by the Governor, the law is the toughest in the nation to stop bullying. Make no mistake. This is a huge problem.
It’s no longer some bullies in a schoolyard. With Facebook pages, websites and texting, bullying has moved to cyberspace. You could have dozens, if not hundreds, of kids tormenting another child. It’s sick.
So anti-bullying advocates joined with Garden State Equality – the state’s leading gay and lesbian civil rights organization – to get the new law passed. Given that this paper is a big supporter of Garden State Equality, and that the media reports were all glowing, the anti-bullying law sure sounded like a no brainer to me, even if I didn’t know all the details.
Meanwhile, some right-wing Republicans were expressing opposition – I assumed because Garden State Equality was in favor. What a bunch of sick bigots, I thought.
Then a couple weeks ago, I was talking with powerful Republican blogger Art Gallagher of Highlands. Art and I share a libertarian streak on economics, and often agree on policy. As I’m leaving, he says that the anti-bullying law will be a costly mess to implement, and school districts are up in arms over it. An agitated Gallagher claimed it’s a complete overreaction to the problem.
I dismissed his comments as the rantings of a red neck Republican.
Five days later, the New York Times – of all newspapers – runs a front page story reporting that New Jersey schools are struggling with the costs and burdens of implementing the law!
I was shocked.
“I think this has gone well overboard,” Richard G. Bozza, executive director of the New Jersey Association of School Administrators told the Times. “Now we have to police the community 24 hours a day. Where are the people and the resources to do this?”
The Times article stated that while many parents and educators welcome the new law, others say it “reaches much too far, and complain that they have been given no additional resources to meet its mandates.”
Of course, when all the politicians got up at the press conferences to brag about passing the anti-bullying law, no one – including the mainstream media – told us the other side of the story. Specifically, that the state was providing no money to local school districts to implement it.
Hey, it’s easy to be a hero when someone else is picking up the tab.
And if we can’t get the full story on the anti-bullying law, imagine how screwed we get on legislation with much less noble purposes. Unfortunately, no politician was willing to expose themselves politically as having reservations on the anti-bullying law. It’s like questioning Mom and Apple Pie.
Of course, the media is too dumb to pick up on the concerns, with the exceptions of the New York Times after the fact and local Republican blogger Art Gallagher, a most improbable combination indeed. (Check out the Times article on-line entitled “Bullying Law Puts New Jersey Schools on Spot” on August 30.)
Let me be clear: I still believe the anti-bullying law is a good thing. There’s a broad public benefit – a real chance to incorporate an ethic against bullying into our culture. This is not a bullshit piece of legislation. But there should have been an honest effort to pay for it. That would have exposed the bill to more rigorous analysis, and increased the chances that any parts not cost-beneficial would have been dropped. And it would not have left local school districts, already burdened with budget cuts, to pay the tab.
Before the New York Times article, I would have said I’m for the anti-bullying law, based on who was advocating for it, as well as the severity of the problem it attacks. As one sponsor recently said, “How could anyone be against this?”
But this is a great example of how not everything is exactly what it seems in government. Look, I’d rather not go down to Trenton and be the crank who always votes no on politically popular legislation that everyone else supports.
Yet I can see that happening. I absolutely refuse to sit there and lie with a straight face. If I see bill after bill come by me to make politicians heroes – while handing the tab to someone else to pay – I’d probably start voting no on every one.
Don’t know if I’d have been at that stage with the anti-bullying law. At the least, I would have offered amendments on ways to pay for it – and get the legislature on record as literally passing the buck. Maybe doing that enough times on enough bills would get the media to take notice.
Not taking responsibility to pay for what we spend has got to stop, no matter how noble the cause. It’s bullshit. If something like the anti-bullying law is that important – and it is – then give the local school districts the money to pay for it. But perhaps that would have doomed the law. How quaint. How hypocritical.
Bleeding heart liberals and red neck Republicans can all unite on what I’m saying. After all, not taking fiscal responsibility is what causes taxes to go up. And when the money inevitably runs out, it’s the truly vulnerable who always get screwed — they don’t have the votes, the campaign contributions or the media clout to protect themselves.
So remember this column the next time you see politicians doing what they do best: looking like heroes at a press conference.
All the New Jersey media is abuzz over the leaked audio and transcript of a talk that Governor Chris Christie delivered to a secret meeting of GOP mega-donors organized by the Koch brothers in Colorado on June 26. The meeting was so secret that Christie did not disclose to the press, as is customary, that he was leaving the state and transferring power to the Lt. Governor.
What has everyone in a tizzy is a story that Christie told the group about how he saved Sheila Oliver’s speakership during the landmark pension and benefit bill negotiations:
And Thursday night it came time for the Assembly. And they started to caucus at 11:00 in the morning. They were supposed to start voting at 1:00. It got to be 5:30 and they were still in the caucus room. And the reports I was getting out of there were not positive about what was going on to my friend the Speaker. She was takin’ a beating at the hands of her own party. At 5:30 she called me and she said to me, “Governor, I don’t know how this is going to play out, but I’m going to, I want to post the bill but I think when I go on the floor, my own party’s going to take a run at me to remove me as Speaker. So I can’t post the bill.” She said, “I think the only way I survive is if the 33 Republicans in the chamber will agree to vote for me for Speaker. Can you work it out?” [scattered laughter] So I said, “Give me five minutes.” [laughter]
So I went down to the Republican Assembly caucus room. I stood at the front of the room and I said, “Ladies and gentleman, it’s a historic day today. You’re going to get an opportunity to cast two historic votes.” [laughter] “The first one, of course, is about pension and benefit reform and I know that everybody in this room supports it. The second one is a little more unusual.” [laughter] I said, “Probably for the only time in my governorship I’m going to actually ask you to vote for a Democrat. I said Sheila Oliver is under siege. And she wants to do the right thing. And we cannot be slaves to party or partisanship. She is right on this issue and she is with us on this issue. So if they take a run at her on the floor, I need all of you to vote for her for Speaker.” I had these men and women look back at me like, “What?” [scattered laughter] And I said to ’em, “We were sent here to lead. Not to preen and posture, posture and pose. To lead. A public office to lead. We need to do this. So raise your hands. Are you with me or aren’t you?” All 33 of them raised their hands and said they were with me.
And so I went back to my office, I got on the phone and I called the Speaker, and I said, “You just got 33 new votes.” And she said, “Well, you just got yourself a bill.” And she went on the floor, she led the debate, another two and a half hours of debate. They never took a run at her. It was the Minority Leader who suddenly went over to the Majority Leader of the Assembly, it was the guy who was gonna take a run at her, and said, “By the way, we’ve got her back, so don’t try it.” [very scattered chuckles] They didn’t. They opened up the board, they cast the votes, by then 46 to 32, with 33 Republicans and 13 Democrats, we passed health and pension reform that will save the taxpayers of New Jersey over the next 30 years at least 132 billion dollars. [audience: “wows”, whistles, applause]
When I get back to New Jersey tomorrow morning, we will sign the bill on Tuesday and make it law and it will become effective July 1st. And that’s what we were sent to do to govern.
At a press conference in Atlantic City today, Christie confirmed he delivered the speech and he issued a correction. He said there were 32 in Assembly members in the Republican caucus room, not 33 as he said in Colorado. The Star Ledger quotes Christie today saying he was “proud” that he helped protect Oliver’s speakership. He said that the story shows that “Republicans put policy over politics,” according to the Ledger.
“The assertions that Gov. Christie has made, they are outright lies. Outright lies. I am beginning to wonder if Gov. Christie is mentally deranged,” Oliver said. “At no time did I ever, ever pick up the telephone, call Gov. Christie and ask him to quote ‘save my leadership.’ ” The governor was engaged in a chest-thumping vaudeville entertainment session in front of the Republican donors, she said. “I don’t expect to call him at all,” she said. “I think it’s disgraceful.”
Now the Democratic leaders of both houses of the New Jersey legislature have called Christie a liar. In January Senate President Stephen Sweeney refuted Christie’s claim that he was in direct contact with Sweeney during the December blizzard while Sweeney was Acting Governor.
Sweeney famously called Christie a “rotten prick” in July after Christie used the line item veto to balance the budget. Today Oliver called Christie “mentally deranged.” Christie calls these people his friends.
Multiple people who were in the Republican caucus room spoke to MMM on the condition of anonymity. They confirmed Christie’s version of the story, sort of. Let’s just say that while 32 hands went up, not all of them had five fingers raised.
The caucus knew that Oliver was under siege. They expected Majority Leader Joe Cryan to try to replace her in order to prevent the pension and benefits reform bill from being posted.
No one could confirm Christie’s account of Minority Leader Alex DeCroce going over to Cryan and telling him, “By the way, we’ve got her back, so don’t try it.” If it happened, it may have been a bluff.
Several of the more conservative members of the caucus were very concerned about casting a vote for Oliver as speaker. “Such a vote will follow me for the rest of my career, if I have a career,” one Assembly member said, according to a source who was in the room.
“There are two factions if the Republican caucus,” said the source, “those who are concerned about primary challenges from Tea Partiers and those from the more moderate districts who are concerned about winning the general election. The conservatives were worried about having to vote for Oliver.”
There is some truth to Oliver’s carefully worded response to the leaked tapes. Christie’s speech was entertainment. As Assemlbyman Patrick Diegnan (D-Middlesex) told the Ledger, this was “a red meat speech.”
As those who have followed Christie on the stump know, the Governor is a great story teller, in the tradition of great Irish story tellers.
Great stories and tales get better every time they are told by a master. While the underlying truth remains, the details get embellished and the story gets “better.” It makes a point better, is more moving or entertaining. Anyone who has attended three or more of Christie’s town hall meetings knows Christie is a great story teller.
Marilyn Schlossbach is withdrawing as a candidate for Assembly in the 11th legislative district.
“It is with great regret that I must withdraw my candidacy for Assembly. My efforts at this time must be focused on the health of my business, and protecting the jobs it has created,” said Schlossbach in a statement issued by 11th district Democratic campaign.
Campaign Manager Vlad Gutman told MMM, “the hurricane hit Marilyn’s businesses hard. She has determined that she must focus on their recovery and that it is not appropriate for her to be a candidate at this time.”
The Democrats biggest challenge in replacing her may be getting a quorum of 11th district county committee members to attend nominating convention.
Gutman was confident that a new candidate would be nominated but declined to name any publicly.
Red Bank Councilman Michael Dupont, also a member of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, said that he would not be a candidate, “No, not at this time. I have a young family, a 15 year old and twins that will be five in December.”
Dan Jacobson, a former Democratic member of the Assembly now running as an Independent, said that he would not accept the Democratic nomination.
“With all due respect to my friends in the Democratic party, no,” said Jacobson
U.S. District Court Judge Noel Hillman upheld Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno’s decision to keep former Olympic champion Carl Lewis off the general election ballot in NJ’s 8th legislative district. Lewis is the Democratic nominee for State Senate.
Guadagno, in her capacity as Secretary of State, ruled that he does not meet New Jersey’s residency requirement to run for the legislature.
