3 users logged on

Tips: BlueJerseyDotCom (AIM) |

Carl Lewis: Where was the due diligence?

by: jeffpickens

Fri Sep 23, 2011 at 01:01:06 PM EDT

promoted by Rosi

(cross-posted from Pick's Place)

So, it looks like this is the end of the road for the on again, off again, on again, off again, doomed-to-fail campaign of former Olympic gold medalist and Willingboro, NJ hometown hero Carl Lewis. On Thursday, 9/22, a three member panel of the the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied Lewis' eligibility to serve in the State Senate because he does not meet the residency requirements.

I am not a political professional. I am an accountant by trade, and I specialize in auditing. In the course of my work, when about to embark on a audit, the first thing we do is a risk assessment on the area being reviewed. We start by asking, "What can go wrong?". Brainstorm the scenarios from worst case to least bad. From there, we construct our plan.

I would think that a person considering running for political office, or encouraging another to run for office, would do a similar due diligence. I would be wrong.

Apparently, the geniuses in the Democratic party of New Jersey did not bother to do this due diligence when they drafted Mr. Lewis to run for Senate. I was excited about his candidacy and hopeful to see a Democrat take a seat that had historically been Republican. However, when I learned that Lewis, although he has owned homes in Burlington County, New Jersey since 2006, had for the most part lived in California, and voted in California in 2009, my hopes sunk.

jeffpickens :: Carl Lewis: Where was the due diligence?

Why? Because I knew that the Republicans would do everything they could to get Lewis tossed off the ballot based on non-residency. The decision was first made by Lt Governor Kim Guadagno, in her dual role as Secretary of State. At the time, I criticized this decision as that of a partisan hack acting in the interests of her party, and not the state. I said if the decision were made by a court of law I could accept it.

After numerous appeals, Lewis' candidacy was a go, then a no-go, then (I've lost track), but now the Court has ruled and it's a done deal.

So, now what do we do?

If a dumb guy like me could see this coming, how could the Democrats who drafted Carl Lewis not have seen this coming? A simple due diligence exercise would entail asking Mr. Lewis if there was any reason he thought he would not meet the residency requirements, anticipating a Republican challenge. If Lewis cited his 2009 voting in California as a potential issue, his sponsors should have been ready to answer this legitimate concern, planned how to fight it, and have a Plan B in case the Lewis candidacy did not work out.

Instead, we now have no Democratic candidate for State Senate in the 8th Legislative District. Once again, the Democrats find themselves outmaneuvered by the Republicans. Why? Because Republicans fight, and Democrats bend over and take it.

When will we learn?

Note to Governor Christie:
When you learned about Carl Lewis' potential candidacy,you had one of your aides call Lewis and threaten to withhold funding from his youth athletic foundation. Now that Lewis is no longer a candidate and the Senate seat is safely Republican, is your funding for the program back on the table

Tags: Carl Lewis, Chis Christie, Democrats, NJ State Senate, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Carl Lewis: Where was the due diligence? | 7 comments

It Was Another Sweeney SNAFU (0.00 / 0)

As with most issues involving Stephen Sweeney lately,
"Situation Normal -All F##ked Up".

No matter what this guy gets involved in, it turns into a HUGE fail for NJ Democrats.

If we don't stand together, we fall alone
That didn't last long.

by: Couch Potato Politics @ Sun Sep 25, 2011 at 17:42:27 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Hater Comment (0.00 / 0)

The Democrats rolled the dice in a sure lose district. They lost out. Sometimes you win,sometimes you lose.

Lewis would have made the GOP spend money and would have hurt other districts funding. He would have been a good candidate with name recognition.

No other candidate would have had a chance in the District.

To blame Sweeney for this is just plain stupid. It was a ballsy move that almost worked.

Who would you have run in that District?

by: firstamend07 @ Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 00:56:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I mostly agree (0.00 / 0)

I think the Dems knew right damn well what they were getting into when they convinced Lewis to run for office. The Dems aren't stupid. They may not play the political games like gentlemen, but they're not stupid.

That being said, how can we be proud that our party almost circumvented the constitution through the courts? How can we be proud that our party tried changing the meaning/intent of the constitution in the courts, rather than in the public eye (the legislature/ballot initiative)?

I ultimately think that the GOP should have let Lewis on the ballot, but only so they could have the chance to prove they could beat him in the election. Beyond that, it's my understanding the constitution is pretty clear on what's required to run for state senate.

Maybe I should challenge the part of the constitution that states the age requirement to run for state senate, despite knowing the document says I'm currently too young. I don't need to be any older to understand the important issues in my district.

by: southernbluedog @ Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 01:47:29 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

maybe you should (0.00 / 0)

Any number of things have been in our (or other) state Constitutions that now are seen as unjust, and others that (like recalls of federal officials) that are considered unconstitutional under the Federal system. Being in the Constitution doesn't mean a chorus of angels came and gave a message from God.

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

by: Hopeful @ Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 15:09:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

If things are unjust... (0.00 / 0)

Why not change the constitution if things are considered unjust? I always thought the constitution was the law of the land. And while it is always open for interpretation, there are several things that are pretty cut and dry.

For example, the definition of "thorough and efficient" education is open to interpretation while "you must be a resident of the district for four years" is quite direct on it's meaning.

by: southernbluedog @ Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 20:37:31 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Residency (0.00 / 0)

Actually, it's not. Is "residency" defined by owning a house in the district? Is "residency" defined by where you coach students in track?By those accounts, Lewis passes. Is "residency" defined by where you vote? In that case, the court ruling is correct.

Blog: http://www.deciminyan.org

by: deciminyan @ Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 02:09:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Residency to me (0.00 / 0)

I think of residency as your headquarters in life. While people may own multiple houses in multiple states (such as vacation houses), there's always one house they would call home. I think it's pretty clear that he was residing in California all this time despite owning a house in NJ.

by: southernbluedog @ Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 11:25:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]