Posted on 07/06/2006 9:28:20 AM PDT by AntiGuv
Look, y'all might be a little slower down there, but people up north usually get the message on the first take.
Both Perry and Gramm had to run for office and win as Republicans. And I would suggest that Perry is not the best example for you to cite.
I pledge $500, if DeLay chooses to run.
Me: Does anybody know the 5th circuit's bias?
deport: I hope they are biased to the 'rule of law'.
Yeah but you're probably an optimist - I'm hoping for not "not biased against Republicans." :)
The point being that almost everyone with any ambition in Texas ran as a Democrat until the 1970s, and most of them through the 1980s.
Let's say that DeLay campaigns and gets elected, then chooses to not take his seat. Who nominates his replacement? The Governor (a Republican)? That wouldn't be a bad thing at all. Run on the popular DeLay name and reputation in a Republican friendly area, then replace DeLay with a choice which DeLay and the Guv like.
Screw off Dims!
I'm not sure it really matters. Eligilibiliy or ineligibility to vote does not mean he is or is not eligible to run for office.
However, Texas law only appears to require that he be a resident on the day he votes. His current residency in Virginia and his voting in the primary there does not appear to disqualify him from returning his residency to Texas and voting there in November.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/EL/content/htm/el.002.00.000011.00.htm#11.001.00
Here's a link to an opinion from the Texas Secretary of State's site that covers the issue of residency. It's specifically talking about college students, but if goes into what is required to establish residency for voting. I am not aware of a separate definition of residency relating to candidacy.
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/elo/gsc1.pdf
There appears to be two requirements. A physical residence in the area in which the person wishes to be a resident, and the intention to make that place the person's home rather than a temporary residence.
The opinion quotes a specific case as follows:
As stated in the seminal case of Mills v. Bartlett, 377 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Tex.1964), “[n]either bodily presence alone nor intention alone will suffice to create the residence, but when the two coincide at that moment the residence is fixed and determined. There is no specific length of time for the bodily presence to continue.”
Delay is claiming that he is an ineligible candidate under the US Constitution rather than under Texas law.
Basically, if Delay chooses to make his home in Texas his home at 11:59 pm the night before the election with the intent to live there, he is eligible to vote in the election.
Since he is not required to be a resident before the actual day of the election, and there is no time period requirement to establish residency, it cannot be determined if his residency would disqualify him until the day of the election.
Otherwise someone could try and sue to have a candidate ruled ineligible even though they aren't required to be a resident prior to election day by the Constitution.
I don't know that the residency requirement are for in state tuition in Texas. In Ohio I had to be a state resident for an entire year before I qualified for in state tuition.
Now Delay has no choice but to run. :-)
The irony that he would be forced to run in a race in which he could not vote for himself would not be lost on me.
I will go out on a limb, and predict that the appeal will fail. The trial court ruling was too fact specific, and abuse of discretion appeals are usually DOA. The facts are not so clear that the create a pattern that the ruling of the trial court must be made as a matter of law. If my prediction is right, then Delay must either run, or the GOP "nominee" run as a write in. I assume they allow write-ins in Texas. If so, the Pubbies could go through their procedure (I don't see how a judge could stop freedom of assembly), and then the "nominee" gathers signature petitions to run as a write-in. I think under this procedure the district would still be at least lean GOP.
You seem to really enjoy attacking posters in a personal way. Sad.
Whether conservative or not, the case is poorly postured for a successful appeal. But I don't claim to be an expert on the specific facts, and did not read the trial court decision.
"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."
Correct. The real danger the law was intended to prevent is having political parties force people off the ballot and undermine primary election decisions.
"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."
I agree with you. I'd also agree with the Judge's ruling if it was a case of GOP just trying to change a candidate on a whim. Although the Dems are putting it that way, the way I see it, it is not. Loophole or not, they are legitimately claiming a change of residence (he voted in Virginia) that enables them to declare the candidate ineligible. IMHO, the Judge ruled incorrectly.
The Texas lege is on notice to consider changes to rectify the law (or not).
The Constitution grants each state the broad rights to determine how it's representatives in the House and Senate are elected.
The election laws in New Jersey have zero bearing on Texas elections.
In 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that citizens of Florida were not being treated equally because a partial recount did not treat all the those in Florida equally under Florida law. There's no requirement that Florida's or Texas's elections laws be identical to other States.
New Jersey ignored their own election laws in the name of "giving voters a competitive" election.
I agree. However, NJ's law wasn't nearly as specific as the Texas law. When a court rules on an issue, overturning that ruling is supposed to require a heavy burden of proof that the original ruling isn't a possible interpretation of the law. The way the NJ law is written didn't give the US Supreme Court an overly solid foundation for saying that the NJ Supreme Court wasn't possibly a correct interpretation.
The Texas code is very explicit and states the only conditions in which a candidate's name can be replaced on the ballot.
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.
A bad ruling by the NJ Supreme Court on NJ election law is not a justification for a bad ruling on Texas election law. As strange as it may sound, the two aren't really related, other than they have to provide the same basic constitutional protections for voters and candidates. However, for the most part it's up to the individual states to determine how their representatives are elected.
The last thing I want to see happen is the States lose more control over their elections and have the federal government gain even more control over the States regarding how the States choose their own representatives.
Delay should be fighting for State's rights, not working to undermine them.
There was too much evidence that DeLay had not really changed his residence, and that it was a sham. His wife still lived in Texas in the home he owns, and DeLay testified he did not know where he would be living on election day.
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.