Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
A Times Editorial
© St. Petersburg Times, published September 6, 2000
Serious issues, which do not include Tom Gallagher's legal qualifications, await debate as Floridians prepare for the last time to elect a treasurer and insurance commissioner.
"Spurious" is almost too gentle an adjective for the lawsuit that Democrat John Cosgrove filed Friday with the stated object of knocking Gallagher off the November ballot. Does he figure on the courts going mad?
More likely, it's a diversion, a "red herring" as politicians used to say. The term originates from fox hunting, where a smelly fish was used to throw dogs off the trail. But Cosgrove should take care that Florida voters don't detect a different scent: the odor of fear. Some might sense that he doubts beating Gallagher in a fair fight.
Secretary of State Katherine Harris convincingly disposed of the challenge to Gallagher's standing under the resign-to-run law, holding that he is not disqualified by a hypertechnical question as to whether his resignation as education commissioner should have been effective Jan. 2, instead of Jan. 3. That was apparently good enough for the Democratic Party, which is conspicuously not a co-plaintiff in Cosgrove's suit but not good enough for Cosgrove.
Cosgrove also raises a new quibble: the so-called "Jim Smith" law. That statute was inspired by some sly Republican doings in 1994, when the party persuaded a weak candidate for agriculture commissioner to withdraw so that then-Secretary of State Jim Smith, who had just lost a primary for governor, could replace him. (Smith lost that race, too.)
But the facts are decisively dissimilar. The law prohibits a qualified candidate who is defeated, or who withdraws, from requalifying as a candidate to fill "a vacancy in nomination." When Gallagher yielded to party pressure this year to abandon his U.S. Senate campaign in favor of the treasurer's race, qualifying for state campaigns hadn't closed. There was no vacancy in nomination.
Gallagher's painful loyalty to party leaders, which deprived Republican rank-and-file of a meaningful Senate primary, is fair game for Cosgrove's criticism. It is insignificant, however, compared to what ought to be the substantive issues in their campaign: What's to be done about soaring windstorm premiums for coastal homeowners? What about HMOs? Are some insurance companies exploiting the injured under no-fault auto insurance, and is it time to overhaul it? How should the insurance industry be regulated after the treasurer's office becomes history in January 2002?
Cosgrove, who chaired the Insurance Committee when Democrats last controlled the House, is conversant on the real issues. There could not be a worse way to impress that on the voters, however, than to be trying to keep them from even considering a competent opponent. If he persists, it may occur to the Democrats to ask him to step aside.