Posted on 08/25/2004 3:37:36 PM PDT by Theodore R.
Candidates' appeal blocks new signups
1st Circuit to take up 5th District quarrel
By CHRIS FRINK cfrink@theadvocate.com Capitol news bureau
Two candidates in the turbulent congressional 5th District race stopped an attempt to open the race to new candidates Tuesday. The 1st Circuit Court of Appeal in Baton Rouge set a hearing on the appeal for 9:30 a.m. Monday.
The election is Nov. 2.
A state district judge had re-opened the qualifying period to allow incumbent U.S. Rep. Rodney Alexander to rejoin the race.
State Democrats sued Alexander in 18th Judicial District Court in Plaquemine after the former Democrat switched political parties and signed up for the race a second time as a Republican with just minutes left in the qualifying period for the Nov. 2 election.
Jock Scott, a Republican and former state representative from Alexandria, and Zelma "Tisa" Blakes, a Democrat from Monroe, joined Tuesday to ask the state 1st Circuit Court of Appeal to overturn District Judge Allen Edwards' ruling to open the race to new candidates.
Alexander's change was intended to "subvert the fair and honest election process for his own personal gain to deceive voters," Edwards said in his ruling.
That was not enough to kick Alexander off the ballot, the judge said. He said Alexander can sign up in any party he wants, and other candidates can qualify too, in the new signup period.
The appeal Blakes and Scott filed Tuesday morning stopped plans to reopen qualifying this morning.
Attorneys in the case have until Friday afternoon to send written briefs outlining their views to the 1st Circuit, Clerk of Court Chris Crow said.
State elections law requires all 12 judges on the court to hear the case, she said.
Alexander's attorneys decided to file a brief supporting "his right to run as a Republican," said Chris Alexander, Rodney Alexander's Baton Rouge attorney.
The two are not related.
"We plan to file something supporting the judge's decision," said Chris Whittington, general counsel for the state Democratic Party, on Tuesday afternoon.
"We're also going to pose the question whether they have the standing to appeal," he said.
Scott and Blakes could have joined the lawsuit several times but chose not to, Whittington said.
Mike Johnson, the attorney who filed the appeal for Scott and Blakes, has been in court several times since the lawsuit was filed but chose not to join it, he said.
"They had a chance," Whittington said.
Both Scott and Blakes simultaneously decided to speak up after they heard about the order to reopen qualifying, Scott said Tuesday.
"I knew the decision made no legal sense," Scott said.
"It was the law going completely awry."
Qualifying ended Aug. 6.
State election law allows a qualifying to be opened for only two reasons: a candidate dying between qualifying and election day, or no candidates qualifying, Scott said.
Also, reopening the qualifying was not an option for Edwards, he said, because the lawsuit asked to kick Alexander off the ballot or force him to run as a Democrat.
Having Alexander out of the race would benefit him, Scott said, but, "I'm not advocating any specific outcome."
Blakes said she challenged the ruling because, "The law has to be upheld."
She and Scott are the only two candidates in the race "who did it right" by qualifying during the set period. She said Edwards opened the door for more candidates to enter the race.
State party officials have repeatedly said Alexander's switch left the race without a viable candidate.
"I just feel like I wasn't hand picked," Blakes said.
She asked state party officials to help with her campaign but has yet to receive little but promises, Blakes said.
"What is it the Democratic Party has been waiting on? Is the 5th District important to the Democrats?" she said.
The controversy about Alexander's switch and the lawsuit that followed revealed a few things, Blakes said.
"I did not expect as many white supporters as I have," she said. "I wish the Democratic Party can see those things."
Ok, my brain hurts on this one. Can someone explain this to me?
I think it says that a Dem, wanted to be a Repub, at the last min, switched. Then the Dem party sued the Dem / Repub candidate and a Judge who may not have been following election law, said that the Dem/Repub could stay on the ballot but then others could also register. Now a hirer court has said the Judge was wrong?
Man, I need a play card for this one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.