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.
Actually, he has the power to call the election for it.
Look. State law is clear. Those who are on here who say it is different...are wrong.
The minute Delay because a legal primary and voting resident of another state....the law allows for him to be replaced. So does judicial prec.
Furthermore...it leave the selection to the local level.
"PS. If you cared about 'the greater good of the party' you wouldn't whine about DeLay"
Dude's from Mass. So do the math
SSS is a troll. He was spewing this BS back when DeLay was being dragged through the coals by the liberal media and Rats.
Sorry dude. But you obviously are confused on the law.
*. Its not a loophole. Its the law. He is allowed to be replaced if he is no longer a resident of the state. Because federal law says he can't run that seat. AND...Federal law says the voters can't be disenfranchised.
ALSO- one of the guys that is expected to replace Delay on the ballot...was poling better than the Dem. Which is why the local Dems filed the law suit.
The guy originally ran for a political position as a Dem.
Look. I saw the State of Mass flag on your page. So we can understand if you don't know Texas Politics.
But pushing it don't help ya
The guy originally ran for a political position as a Dem.
Look. I saw the State of Mass flag on your page. So we can understand if you don't know Texas Politics.
But pushing it don't help ya
The guy originally ran for a political position as a Dem.
Look. I saw the State of Mass flag on your page. So we can understand if you don't know Texas Politics.
But pushing it don't help ya
'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.'
Great Post, Mr.Smith. Can you post the link to where you found that? thanks
SSS=same stupid shitte.....right?
It does indeed set prec.
And further more the 5th circut agreed.
And you're missing some serious points. The biggest or which has already been shown to you by Mr.Smith. And yes, it does set Prec. And yes ...the 5th circuit agrees with it.
'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.'
Guess what. ELECTION DAY HAS ALREADY HAPPENED!!!
DELAY VOTED IN A Virginia PRIMARY election.
His residency in VA is legit. And here's an example of why the 5 circuit will likely overturn this.
'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.'
The funny thing in all of this. What will the voters say when they are told they are being disenfranchised...DUE TO A LAW SUIT FILED BY THE DEMOCRAT'S TEAM????
They are gonna be ticked.
It seems to make little sense to force a candidate to run against his will. Certainly it is to a party's disadvantage to change candidates so, other than the New Jersey rule that is in place specifically for the benefit of the state administering elections, there is no reason to have this rule, other than to allow free reign to unscrupulous political operatives.
You're a squishy McCain style moderate. You detest the religious right (which includes DeLay), and every post you makes reaffirms it.
This was a political ruling by a Democratic judge. It was a legal ruling only to the extent that he is called "yer honor."
I can't speak to the intricacies of the law, but I can speak to common sense. I think this kind of law was put into place in order to force the parties to abide by the results of primaries. I.e., to prevent them from parachuting in a new candidate against the will of the people. Probably a Progressive Era thing.
Maybe you want to read my post again. I thought I was clear where I stood. Maybe not. If you are confused, I can post something a bit more direct.
OK. I got the motivation, but not the historical era.
Look, y'all might be a little slower down there, but people up north usually get the message on the first take.
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.