Posted on 07/06/2006 9:28:20 AM PDT by AntiGuv
It would be ironic if that were the case, but it appears that at least as far as residency is concerned, the requirements are the same. If he chooses to be a resident in Texas for the election I believe he will be able to vote.
According to a previous post, this guy was overridden at least twice before.
"This do-over crap is wrong IMHO. I feel the same way about Lieberman. He either runs as a Rat, or an independent. Not both. It's just not fair sportsmanship to do it this way."
Um, wrong. Or rather, depends on State law and there is absolutely nothing wrong with running under . The NY Conservative Party did a lot of business trying to keep Rockefellar Republicans at bay by running conservatives when a liberal would get the GOP nod, then simply endorsing the Republican when the candidate was a Republican. Senator Jim Buckley (brother of William F. and of Buckley v Valeo fame) is a case in point.
'sportsmanship'?!? Code words for 'loses to liberals'. Been there, done that, no thanks Bush41. Its a matter of doing the best you can within the rules. If the rules say that changing residence makes you ineligible then that isnt 'gaming' the system, that's living under it. (Albeit rules defined by the Judges, so they have the last word here.) I cant fault Delay for trying, and those who dont live right here in Travis and understand how Delay has been railroaded by a partisan Democrat DA have no idea.
SPEAKING OF AMORPHOUS PARTY LABELS ...
We have a Former Democrat turned Republican now Independent running, Carole Ann Richards Keeton Rylander Foghorn-Leghorn
Strayhorn was running against Perry in the primary until her chances dimmed then decided to run as an independent.
There is Kinky, world's most famous cigar-chomping Jewish cowboy songwriter. Cant figure if he's a libertarian or uber-liberal. Some boring Democrat named Bell (not Art). And Rick Perry, prolife, Aggie, handsome, former conservative Democrat and now conservative Republican.
Yeehaw.
I hypothesized an argument which I knew would not hold. For most of us, that would stop us from pursuing the matter further.
For Democrats, they're also aware of these things, but they put forth bogus arguments anyway, and then win. I guess their thinking is that by starting the ball rolling, who knows what could happen, at least they get more players in the game who can make things happen, and that's better than from where they were originally. Everything is an opportunity to create another opportunity.
That's why I think someone should make an argument like the one I did, once in a while, just to mix things up a bit.
-PJ
"There wasn't any reason for Delay to retire unless he was guilty."
Wrong. You don't understand the Earle case, or Delay.
The ultimate political crusader and GOP loyalist, Delay didnt retire because he was guilty, he retired because he was becoming more of a political liability than an asset.
Earle's TRIMPAC case and his related attacks on GOP election campaign efforts has already fallen apart in so many ways its beyond funny.
What a blowhard comment talking about blowing smoke. You're not from Texas and you are second-guessing those of who know these liberals from years of their works - Sparks is definitely a liberal judge, if you go by his work product.
That being said, his reuling was straight up interpretation of 'eligibility', could go either way ideologically, but suspicious in who it helped.
Sam Sparks has helped Liberals on many other cases, like redistricting and affirmative action. IMHO, he's a liberal Judge. Examples:
Here is a case where Sam Sparks went to bat for Planned Parenthood but got slapped down:
"he judge's ruling lifts an injunction that prevented the enforcement of a Texas budget provision that blocked federal family planning funding from going to state family planning clinics that provide abortion services (Khanna, Houston Chronicle, 3/16). The ruling orders U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, who issued the injunction in 2003, to re-examine the issue and dismiss the injunction, the San Antonio Express-News reports. However, until Sparks is able to review the case, the state Department of Health will continue to honor the injunction and provide federal funding to Planned Parenthood affiliates and other abortion providers, a department official said, according to the Express-News (Contreras, San Antonio Express-News, 3/17)."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=21545
Sparks was also overrruled by the 5th circuit in the famous Hopwood case:
After an eight day bench trial in May of 1994, Judge Sparks issued his ruling on August 19, 1994. He determined that the University could continue to use the racial preferences which had been at issue in the litigation.[2]. In his ruling he noted that while it was "regrettable that affirmative action programs are still needed in our society," it was a still "a necessity" until society could overcome its legacy of institutional racism. Thereupon, the four plaintiffs appealed the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (which heard appellate oral arguments in the case on August 8, 1995).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopwood_v._Texas
According to Texas election statute, a write-in candidacy must be filed no later than 5 PM of the 70th day before Election Day (in this case, August 29) and must receive the same number of signatures on a petition that an Independent candidate would (ie, 500 in this case, iirc).
Judge Sam Sparks has given a number of liberal rulings in the last 14 years, and as someone who lives in the same county, I can vouch for him not being any type of Republican I'd recognize at a party event.
Sam Sparks is not a conservative but a Strayhorn RINO-type Dem-then-Repub-now-independent type:
"“Carole Keeton Strayhorn and the undersigned have been life-long friends. It is a matter of public record the undersigned and his wife have long supported Carole Keeton Strayhorn in her political endeavors and have signed her petition to be an independent candidate on the ballot for the governor’s race in the upcoming election. For these reasons and to avoid any appearance of impropriety the undersigned recuses himself in this case.”"
http://capitolannex.com/?cat=16
"Most district judges in Texas are very careful when it comes to their decisions since the 5th Circuit court is not shy about overturning their decisions if they get "creative"."
Sam Sparks has had his liberal rulings overturned before by the 5th circuit, see my previous posts.
Thanks.
However, some people seem to go to great lengths to support their ideas.
Maybe I've been posting here too long when I have a hard time telling the difference between people making a purposefully false argument and people who are simply trying to find any possible means to justify their stance.
Maybe that's because I catch myself from time to time being the person making absurd arguments to justify my own views. :)
"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"
Why do you keep repeating this LIE?!?
It's an outrageous deception. New Jersey law was and is more specific and clear about ballot replacement and their deadlines. Torricelli passed the deadline. A very clear deadline that was written right into the text of the law.
Texas law is actually the less clear. Sparks rules both that 'ineligibility' only meant eligibility in the US Constitution, and then interpreted the residency requirement to be such that it couldnt even be assessed until after an election.
The interpretation here is murkier since Texas law clearly provides a valid replacement simply by a 'declaration of ineligibility'. Its not clear why, to me at least, someone cant say "hey, I'm ineligible" and show some proof/evidence and be done with it.
"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."
Probably right, although the legal crux was how Sparks created the 'catch-22' wrt ineligibility due to residency. The way Sparks wrote it, even someone in a jail in another state couldnt be declared ineligible prior to the election.
I am not sure why DeLay didnt say his *intention* was to be in Virginia on election day.
I think the best plan is to have Delay run an open candidacy where he will resign once re-elected.
-PJ
Interesting and creative idea.
I read the NJ Supreme Court ruling and read the code they ruled did not exclude the replacement of the candidate's name on the ballot. I agree that their ruling did not seem like a reasonable interpretation of the law.
The Texas law is very explicit about the conditions in which a candidate can be replaced on the ballot. The candidate can be replaced on the ballot if they are determined to be ineligible before a certain date, I believe it's 74 days before the election.
After rereading the NJ Supreme Court decision and a few articles commenting on it, the things I saw as being vague didn't really have any bearing on why or how the NJ Court Ruled. They simply made some excuses by quoting some previous cases which did not represent the same situation and then ignored the law and ruled according to how they wanted to rule.
I still feel the Texas law is less vague, but regardless of if I'm right or wrong in that respect, it doesn't appear to have any bearing on that case or this case.
Texas law is actually the less clear. New Jersey law was and is more specific and clear about ballot replacement and their deadlines.
I disagree. The Texas law is very clear about deadlines and conditions under which the candidate can be replaced on the ballot.
Sparks rules both that 'ineligibility' only meant eligibility in the US Constitution...
Here's the relevant Texas Election Code:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/EL/content/htm/el.009.00.000141.00.htm#141.001.00
Note Section 141.001(c): (c) Subsection (a) does not apply to an office for which the federal or state constitution or a statute outside this code prescribes exclusive eligibility requirements.
If you feel that the Constitution's eligibility requirements aren't exclusive and can have additional State requirements as well, you're left with Delay being required to having maintained residency for the 12 months preceding the deadline for when he had to file to be on the primary ballot. There's no requirement listed that he must maintain that residency until the general election.
While that might be a technicality, it's no more of a technicality than Delay attempting to be declared ineligible because it's too late for him to withdraw from the election. However, that doesn't really matter since it appears that there isn't a lot of contention as to if it's the US Constitution's requirements that apply exclusively in this case.
...and then interpreted the residency requirement to be such that it couldn't even be assessed until after an election.
US Constitution. Article I, Section 2, paragraph 2:
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
Residency isn't required prior to being elected. The candidate must an inhabitant of the state "when elected".
How do you suggest that a Judge rule that the Republican Party Chairman properly ruled him ineligible based on him not being an inhabitant of the State on a date in the future when there is nothing keeping him from being an inhabitant of the State on that date?
The requirement of being an inhabitant of the state doesn't kick in until the election. He meets all the other requirements. He's eligible.
He's simply trying to do an end run around the law because he wants to withdraw after the cutoff date.
The Torricelli ruling was wrong. That doesn't mean that this Judge should also ignore the law like the NJ Supreme Court did.
The interpretation here is murkier since Texas law clearly provides a valid replacement simply by a 'declaration of ineligibility'.
That's not murky at all. It's very clear. If Delay is ineligible, he can be replaced on the ballot at this point. Texas law deferrers to the US Constitution's eligibility requirements for Congressmen. Those eligibility requirement are clear. Delay qualifies as an eligible candidate under those requirement at this time.
Its not clear why, to me at least, someone cant say "hey, I'm ineligible" and show some proof/evidence and be done with it.
A candidate doesn't declare themselves ineligible. In this case it's the Republican Party Chair who has that responsibility, and they do so according to the law and the US Constitution.
If a candidate just doesn't want to run, they have to withdraw before the deadline in order to be replaced on the ballot. Delay missed that date.
"I thought this sounded really strange before I went and actually read the Texas election law."
Have a link handy?
"Delay will have to move back to Texas and run and win, which I expect he will easily do."
Yeah, you're right, all he'll have to do is move his car back, he could even hire someone to do that for him.
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.