Uphold the Rule of Law, Vote Jon Corzine

[Note: This blog is responsive to reader demand and decided to alter its initial stance to avoid making political campaign endorsements.   However, when certain races involve important legal issues and/or attorneys, exceptions will be made and one such exception will be made for the New Jersey gubernatorial race.]

The New Jersey race is still considered up for grabs among the Republican Chris Christie and Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine, with a potentially strong independent candidate Chris Daggett a possibility to not only tip the election to one of the others, but also to win the entire election given the heavy negatives of the other two.

I urge you to set aside party labels and ideological labels for this race.   Here, they mean nothing.  This three-man contest is the functional equivalent of the Democratic primary.  Republican Chris Christie has deliberately run to the left of Democratic Governor Jon Corzine, embracing President Barack Obama and his policies and new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.   Strong independent Chris Daggett and Corzine share many positions.   If one wants a "conservative" candidate, there isn't one.   The Steve Lonegan vote is out there, it will vote, and it will not be going to Christie. 

A quick aside:  Anyone who votes for Christie thinking he is a conservative is simply projecting his/her hopes on that candidate, or is delusional. 

A second aside:  Anyone who votes for Christie thinking he is a progressive reformer is simply projecting his/her hopes on that candidate, or is delusional.

Each of the candidates has merits and demerits.   However, one candidate has consistently stood apart from the pack.   In a bad way.

In concentrating on constitutional issues, civil rights and the legal process, the stated positions from the one attorney in the race, Christie, show serious cause for alarm. While he has been criticized for being vague on important issues such as property tax relief, his own campaign website has offered alarming specifics on legal matters.   These specifics alone support a vote against Christie.  

First, Christie supports making it harder for out-of-state plaintiffs to bring lawsuits in New Jersey.   This is a platform plank designed to appeal to the know-nothing segment of the electorate which holds lawyers in the same regard as it does the swine flu.   As an attorney, Christie should know the serious flaws in this position; the fact that he either does not, or cares not, is alarming.   Defendants in this state, whether they be corporations or individuals, will not ever enjoy being sued but should be happy they can be sued in their home state rather than someplace far away.  Defending a lawsuit in this state means that (in almost all cases) New Jersey law is used and the inconveniences of going to a different state are avoided.   The advantages outweigh the disadvantages.   Plaintiffs who are barred from New Jersey courts will simply sue at home, or seek federal jurisdiction.   It is in the best interest of New Jersey parties (whether businesses or individuals) to be sued in New Jersey, with New Jersey law governing the dispute.   

Christie's campaign tries to package this proposal as part of being "pro-business," but consider this:  businesses -- or anyone for that matter -- are most comfortable in jurisdictions where their rights are protected and the laws are consistent and evenly enforced.   A sign of a fair justice system is having the confidence of people subject to its jurisdiction.  

Second, Christie wants to make it harder to bring so-called frivolous class actions.   Once again, this is the type of position which can lead to New Jersey defendants either ending up in federal court or going to the faraway state (or country) of a plaintiff.   This position has the real potential to hurt New Jersey residents and businesses, but Christie has pandered to the know-nothing element of the electorate that thinks lawyers are the cause of society's ills.   As an attorney himself, Christie should know better, and the fact he has chosen to ignore it suggests he is ill-suited to represent New Jersey.

Third, Christie suggests making it harder to use so-called frivolous expert witnesses.   This sounds like a litigator who is frustrated by obstacles to a victory -- obstacles like due process, equal protection, the basic concept of justice, and other basic concepts in our Constitution.   Such litigators often decry the rules of civil (or criminal) procedure, rules of evidence and other court rules as getting in the way of their mission.  (These lawyers are the ones who make very bad judges.)  Of course, such rules often are the only thing protecting some truly innocent people from gross miscarriages of justice.   We see that is not a concern of Christie's, and that needs to be your huge concern if you live, work or invest in businesses doing business in New Jersey.

The common theme in each of Christie's proposals is an animus against aggrieved parties -- victims, whistleblowers, you name it.  Christie's positions are anti-victim.   Policies following these positions will tend to tip the scales of justice against the aggrieved and in favor of the wealthier and more powerful.

This anti-victim bias will encourage greater corporate malfeasance.   In a day and age of great corporate scandals and public corruption, any candidate proposing to place obstacles on the road to, or inside, the courthouse must draw suspicion.    Once again, alarm bells must ring. 

When that candidate is an attorney, and not just any attorney but a former United States Attorney whose job was to investigate such matters, these positions raise the gravest of doubts as to how the general public interest will be protected.  

The apparent low priority toward the public interest is evidenced by the complete absence of positions regarding priorities of the State Attorney General's office.   If Christie can be expected to have a "core competency," it should be with the AG's office where the chief executive can make appointments and drive the policy of the office.   Instead, Christie has been all but overtly contemptuous of the AG's office, continuing his attitude while U.S. Attorney.  In a sense, he is consistent; this attitude allows him to focus solely on the U.S. Attorney's Office and hence on his accomplishments.  However, it is troubling for it indicates he values the office only for its ability to advance his personal ambition.   

I propose the scariest question of this campaign:   How would Governor Christie use the State Attorney General's office to advance his personal ambitions? 

When one considers the revelations this summer of the non-disclosed loan to his immediate subordinate, accusations that the same subordinate stonewalled FOIA requests and then, when confronted with the evidence, resigned the same day, and other matters including the curious hiring of Samuel Stern, one cannot ignore these matters and retain the confidence that the Attorney General's office will be run with the appropriate integrity, fairness and respect for individual rights and procedural safeguards.

Come to think of it, Christie's silence about the Attorney General's Office indicates not that he has no plan for it...but rather that he very much does have a plan...and does not want to reveal it.   This secret could be the most troubling of any point raised in this article.

As an attorney, Chris Christie is unacceptable as a choice for Governor.

On the other hand, Governor Corzine has appointed a very capable Attorney General (Anne Milgram) who appears to be growing into the job, although this office has great untapped potential.   More can be done.   In addition, Corzine has been able to make small net reductions in the size of state government, while under his stewardship violent crime is down and important advances in education have been made.   He has made our children a priority and one can hardly quarrel with that regardless of the cost.  

While the current budget deficit is a serious concern, Corzine is never accused of being either incompetent or corrupt.   In this state, that means a lot.  

As for Chris Daggett, he has proposed imposing a sales tax on professional services including legal fees.   This will either act as a direct tax on lawyers (and may be unconstitutional), or will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher fees.   The impact of this proposal will be to discourage many middle-class aggrieved parties (i.e. victims) from seeking justice.   On this basis alone, Daggett is unacceptable.   (Full disclosure:  I am a lawyer and this proposal will hurt me.)

The author of this article considers himself to have common sense on civil rights and fiscal matters -- some might even consider him "conservative" and in the past some have -- and is a registered Republican.   Party affiliation notwithstanding, the positions of the candidates present a clear choice.

Crime, Politics and Policy endorses Governor Corzine for a second term.