By DAN JUNEAU

The battle for control of the United States Senate is becoming extremely virulent one month out from the election.

Perhaps nowhere is that more obvious than in the state of New Jersey.

The flamboyant incumbent, Democrat Robert Toricelli, was plagued by ethics violations and allegations of improprieties. Recent polls showed he was clearly behind his Republican challenger and was almost certain to lose the race.

A loss by Toricelli – something not considered possible just a month ago – would put the Democrats very much at risk of losing their one-seat majority in the Senate.

In a bold, but not necessarily legal, attempt to prevent the loss of the Democratic seat in New Jersey, the Democrats pressured Toricelli into announcing he was abandoning his campaign for re-election.

Toricelli did not resign his seat to create a vacancy. Instead, he simply announced he would not continue his campaign.

The Democrats then teamed up with New Jersey’s Democratic governor to “declare” the seat was vacant, and former Senator Frank Lautenburg was “appointed” by the governor to be the Democratic nominee for the November election.

Some rather clear deadlines in New Jersey law, establishing when a candidate can withdraw and be replaced, were totally ignored by the Democrats. The New Jersey Supreme Court went along with the ruse, and the Toricelli case is now pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Toricelli maneuver sets an interesting precedent if it is allowed to stand.

If candidates trailing badly in the polls can be replaced by candidates with a better chance of winning, the integrity of our election process will be called into question. This case is just one example of how high the stakes are in the Senate races, and how the edge of the envelope is being pushed to guarantee control of the Senate.

A handful of races will decide whether or not the Democrats continue in the majority and set the agenda for debates. In Minnesota and Missouri, Democratic incumbents are in trouble, and in South Dakota, Republicans stand a chance to pick up a formerly Democratic open seat.

The closeness of those races makes the New Jersey situation of paramount importance.

But the Republicans are facing close races in Arkansas and Texas as well, a fact that makes the question of who will be in power in the Senate cloudy at best.

What is at stake in all of this?

Beyond the question of who will chair the committees and select the agenda for floor debate, the most crucial factor that will be determined in the Senate elections is whether or not President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees must be acceptable to the liberals in the U.S. Senate in order to be approved.

Bush would love to see Rep. Orrin Hatch, not the super liberal Pat Leahy, determine if his nominees make it to the Senate floor.

The lone Senate race that may not be decided on Nov. 5 is the one in Louisiana. Consider for a moment the possibility that Mary Landrieu ends up in a runoff with one of her three major Republican challengers.

What if the U.S. Senate is made up of 50 Democrats and 49 Republicans on Nov. 5, with the Louisiana election then decisive in determining whether George Bush has friends in power in the Senate or political adversaries in control?

The Louisiana election will then become “nationalized” with Bush undoubtedly making frequent trips into a state where he is extremely popular, attempting to secure the vote that would bring him the Republican majority he desires in the Senate.

Far fetched? Not at all.

In fact, this scenario is quite possible due to the closeness of just a handful of key Senate elections.

DAN JUNEAU is the president of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry.