Posted on 07/06/2006 9:28:20 AM PDT by AntiGuv
AUSTIN — A federal judge ruled today that Republicans cannot replace former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on the ballot for the 22nd Congressional District race.
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, a Republican appointee, ruled that DeLay must appear on the Nov. 7 ballot as the GOP nominee for the congressional seat that DeLay abandoned last month. Sparks ruling was confirmed by Texas Democratic Party spokeswoman Amber Moon.
Details of Sparks ruling were not immediately available.
Sparks ruling halts the process of replacing DeLay on the ballot, but the GOP is expected to appeal the decision to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
If the Republicans lose on appeal, DeLay will have to decide whether to campaign for an office from which he already has resigned.
When he announced his resignation, DeLay said he believed he could win re-election but thought he would be a drag on other Republican candidates for office because Democrats would use him as a lightening rod to raise money and attack the GOP in general. So he resigned and dropped his re-election bid.
Precinct chairs in the four counties of the 22nd District already have started the process of selecting a new nominee.
Republicans who have been vying for the seat are Sugar Land lawyer Tom Campbell; state Reps. Charlie Howard or Sugar Land and Robert Talton of Pasadena; state Sen. Mike Jackson of Houston; Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs; Fort Bend County Commissioner Andy Meyers; Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace; retired Air Force Maj. Don Richardson; and former state GOP executive committee member Tim Turner.
The Democratic nominee is former U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson of Houston. The Libertarian Party is represented by Bob Smither of Friendswood.
DeLay already had won the Republican nomination for re-election to his district when he resigned from the U.S. House on June 9. Texas Republican Chair Tina Benkiser declared DeLay ineligible because he had become a resident of Virginia, and she started the process of replacing DeLay on the ballot.
The Texas Democratic Party sued, claiming Benkiser had no authority to declare DeLay ineligible.
The Democrats said DeLay's eligibility is determined by the U.S. Constitution as to which state DeLay is an inhabitant of on election day, Nov. 7. They said DeLay also could not withdraw from the race because state law does not allow a party's nominee to withdraw when another political party also has a nominee.
Republicans argued that Benkiser could declare DeLay ineligible because the Constitution allows the states to control the manner and means of the election. They said that by changing his official residence to Virginia, DeLay had made himself ineligible for the Texas office, even though he still maintained a home in Sugar Land.
DeLay last year had to give up his position as House majority leader after being indicted in Austin on campaign-finance related charges. DeLay said that investigation was politically motivated by Democratic District Attorney Ronnie Earle.
DeLay became a focus of national news reports in the wake of the Jack Abramoff influence peddling scandal. DeLay has maintained his innocence, but two of his former aides have pleaded guilty to federal charges.
He was an idiot for not dropping out before the primary.
SSS, how 'bout dem sour grapes?
You pimped Campbell over DeLay for months and DeLay still whipped him. The district didn't want Campbell. It still doesn't want Campbell.
I will agree on one thing however: DeLay should never have run in the primary if he was going to cause this mess. It is his obligation now to run for this seat and let the chips fall where they may.
The tide is turning, and Lampson would still be the underdog.
In Gore 2000, the US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that it was a violation of equal protection for voters in some counties to have a recount, but not in others. The Supreme Court ruled that for a state-wide office you had to either recount all of the votes or none of them.
Fast forward to 2002, and the US Supreme Court refused to intervene in the Torricelli case, perhaps being gun-shy from Gore v. Bush. Regardless, they said that it was a state matter and let the NJ State Supreme Court decide. New Jersey ignored their own election laws in the name of "giving voters a competitive" election.
Now it is 2006 in Texas, and Texas is ruling that DeLay must stay on the ballot. Given that we now have the New Jersey State Supreme Court as a precedent, can someone make the argument that since this election is for a Federal office that all states participate in, that the voting rules should be the same for all people voting for offices in the chamber, that is, that it's unfair for Texans to be made to vote under opposite conditions than New Jerseyans when the situations are so similar? In other words, it is not equal protection among the states for New Jersey to be allowed to ignore their own election laws for Senator while Texas is not allowed to do the same.
-PJ
I see you live in MA. How about we ask someone who actually lives in his district whether he's popular or not.
Carlo, what say ye?
"Then why did he leave his name in the primary ballots? Oh, that's right, so he could raise campaing money to use for his defense fund. Delay can withdraw if he wants, but he was trying to game the system by staying on through the primaries, and hoping the party chairman could replace him, even though Texas law states that this cannot happen."
Delay may have been gaming the system, my oh-so-bright sarcastic friend, but I'd be quite surprised if the Fifth Circuit allowed Republican voters with the choice of a Republican candidate who has decided he will NOT serve and has become ineligible to serve, and a Democrat. It's just not going to happen.
And remember: you read it here first.
Does the name "Dick Cheney" ring a bell with you?"
'Judge Sidney Fitzwater in Dallas ... went on to rule that Mr. Cheney cannot be considered an inhabitant of Texas, given his "intent that Wyoming be his place of habitation." This intent was evidenced, in part, by his notification to "the United States Secret Service that his primary residence is his home in Jackson Hole, Wyoming."
This ruling was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on December 7, 2000.'
Right!
Wouldn't it be great if Delay were forced to run . . . and won?
:)
All filing deadlines in Texas are done, barring a major redrawing of the map per the ruling concerning TX-23.
Delay hasn't decided he won't serve? How much clearer can you get than resigning your seat and getting a new job?
Looks like the GOP is going to have to start a massive write-in campaign, then.
Why not just vote for Delay?
You could do that, too, and then hope he stays in Virginia so that he is ruled ineligible, which would mean a special election I believe.
IANAL, but I think that that is what would happen. I guess it just depends how comfortable people are with voting for him. I personally consider him a slimeball, but I'm not in his district. :)
I am not spiteful and not full of sour grapes. I saw the trouble DeLay was in before the primary. I urged Republicans to vote for the candidate more likely to keep TX22 Republican. I foresaw a Lampson victory if DeLay won the primary.
Freepers attacked the messenger then. They attack the messenger now.
So Herbie appointed another (failed) "impartial" judge.
Like Souter, Kennedy, .... so many other circuit judges.
This man failed America in so many ways.
Why do you say that? I've read the ruling.
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.