Session: 123456789101112131415161718         Page 289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333 of 617

had always endorsed Passannante and yet I was seeking to get their endorsement, and I came before their committee, and the basic question they asked at that time after we went through all the substantive issues was: “If we give you our endorsement, and if you lose in the Democratic party, will you run an active race on our line?” And by way of background you have to know that they changed the law in the state of New York so that the Liberal party can't endorse the Democratic candidate who wins in the Democratic primary. They have to make their endorsement at the same time, and therefore there is a certain Russian roulette that is involved. If the Liberals select someone and put him on the line, he's on that line no matter whether he, assuming he's a Democrat, loses in the Democratic party -- with one exception: and that is (and it's an escape valve) that you can take someone who's on the Liberal line (or any other line) after the primary has been held and substitute him with someone else if you appoint him for a judicial position or run him for some judicial position that is vacant at that time. It's an escape hatch that assumes two things: (1) that you've got a lawyer that's running, because you can't nominate for judicial position someone who's not a lawyer, and (2) that there is a judicial race that you can do this for. And that's happened in a couple of cases.

But in any event, the Liberal party committee said, “Will you run an active race on our line, assuming that you lose in