Judge's ruling keeps DeLay on ballot

Houston Chronicle ^ | July 06, 2006 | R.G. Ratcliffe

[Iwo Jima]

Well, he will have to do more than that, or he will be attacked AFTER he has won the election as having been ineligible on election day. He will have to change his voter registration, driver's license -- reverse EVERYTHING that he did and cited as proof of his Virginia residency. And sell or rent out that Virgina townhouse.

[Iwo Jima]

I have had my run-ins with Judge Sparks. He has quite a strong independent streak. He has ruled against me more that for me, but I thought that he was fair and not out of bounds.

If Judge Sparks is the ogre you say, then why did the defendant (Texas Republican Party) remove the case to federal court in Austin KNOWING that that meant that Judge Sparks would decide the case?

It was the defendant that cited the constitutional requirement for eligibility for congressmen as the grounds for moving the case to federal court from Texas state court. That was the jurisdictional basis for Judge Sparks to even have the case in his court. He interpreted that Constitutional provision the only possible way that it could be interpreted.

You can't blame Judge Sparks in any way for this fiasco. The blame is solely Delay's and the Texas Republican Party. And people like you who thought that cheating is OK as long as it is our guys that did it.

[untrained skeptic]

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/el.toc.htm

Chapter 141, section 141.001 and Chapter 145 appear to be the most relevant.

[frogjerk]

New Jersey's election laws are likely different, or possibly the situation was different as well. I'm really not sure what situation you're referring to in regards to NJ.

New Jersey law had nothing to do with the Torch stepping aside for the Cadaver. The highest court of New Jersey ignored the law because they wanted a Democrat to win.

[RasterMaster]

I wasn't wrong....I do understand that Earle was on a fishing expedition and didn't have a case. Delay should not have stepped down from his leadership position!

He's a liability now, because he ran for re-election, won, then stepped down. Now he's given the seat to a DUmocrat because he wouldn't stand up to them and RINOs who want his seat or leadership position. "Political liability" isn't the case because he won the primary. He's only a target by dems and media whores making hay of the situation, just as Frist is a target of the leftist liars. That alone should not cause Delay to resign regardless if spineless GOP higher ups support him or not.

DUmocrats don't abide by any ethical or moral standard, so the Repubs shouldn't be required to step down just because a DUmmy starts a smear campaign. When did Reid or Pelosi call for Patches Kennedy, Wm. Jefferson or Moonbat McKinney to resign their seats? I won't hold my breath either.

[WOSG]

" If Judge Sparks is the ogre you say"

I never said he was an ogre. I have cited his liberal rulings in a numbers of cases. IMHO he's a liberal Judge,
contrary to both the media 'Republican' label and statements on this board.

I also read his decision here and while I disagree with it I certainly wont call it egregious. I *dont* think 'cheating is OK' and it is wrong for you to say that. I happen to think fulfilling requirements of an election law is *not* cheating, and felt that was done. This is no more "cheating" than what Phil Gramm did in 1983. (He resigned from Congress as a Democrat so he could run for his own seat as a Republican.)

Either way, the Texas GOP and Delay *will* follow the law as determined by the courts, and so leave aside the 'cheating' talk.

[WOSG]

"Delay should not have stepped down from his leadership position! "

He Had no choice! Indicted officials are removed from leadership positions. House Rules, and the attempt to carve an "Earle exception" failed, for good political reason.

[RasterMaster]

As I stated, the rules were put in place by those seeking to undermine his leadership to take his place. DUmocrats don't follow rules (they don't have any), so he's playing right into the desires of the opposition and become their tool.

[deport]

As I stated, the rules were put in place by those seeking to undermine his leadership to take his place.

---

So Newt and the Republicans knew that DeLay would be in this leadership position back in 1993 when the Republicans adopted the 'indictment' rule during the Rostenkowski episode. They were really far sighted. Granted they did reverse it in 04 only to reinstate it later a move which DeLay supported.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Had Campbell won the primary, Stockman would have gotten the signatures to get on the ballot with no problem and GOP nominee Campbell would have finished third in the election.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"I suspect that Lampson might be easier to knock off in 2008 than in 2006, because a Presidential vote will bring out a lot of voters who don't involve themselves in politics beyond party ID and won't know Lampson from Ted Kennedy. And because we'll have a strong standard bearer."

---

True, but he'd be the incumbent, and you know the media would be highlighting his occasional "conservative" votes. An incumbent Democrat is not easy to beat in Texas, unless you give him a completely different district.

[deport]

Stockman would have gotten the signatures to get on the ballot with no problem and GOP nominee Campbell would have finished third in the election.

---

Interesting..... you give a lot more credit/ability than I do.

[mysto]

Gov. Perry does not have the Constitution Authority to appoint DeLay's "Replacement."

Yes he does... Perry can appoint someone to hold the office until a special election can be held.
There's plenty of precedent for this. The best example is back in 1993, when Lloyd Bentsen resigned from the Senate to become Clinton's Treasury secretary. The governor of Texas at that time, Ann Richards, appointed Bob Krueger to replace him until a special election was held later that year, won by current Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

[H. Paul Pressler IV]

The Governor has the authority to appoint a Senator when a seat becomes vacant however, he cannot appoint a member to the House of Representatives.

[Political Junkie Too]

And isn't that the darndest holdover from the passing of the 17th amendment? It made sense for a governor to appoint a Senator when the legislature regularly appointed Senators, but now that the people popularly vote for Senator it is anachronistic that the Governor still gets to appoint one in a vacancy.

-PJ

[H. Paul Pressler IV]

Yes. A Senator prior to the 17th was the representative a state interests as opposed to members of the House representing the people's interest.

[mysto]

Does anybody know the 5th circuit's bias?

The 5th Circuit tends to rule conservatively and with judicial restraint, as one might expect since the circuit includes Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. The court is made up of mostly Reagan, Bush 41 & Bush 43 appointees, including the most recent addition, Priscilla Owen. Whether this appeals court will overturn Sparks' decision or not remains to be seen, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do overturn it and let the Republicans replace DeLay.

[mysto]

The Governor has the authority to appoint a Senator when a seat becomes vacant however, he cannot appoint a member to the House of Representatives.

You're right... I stand corrected. Texas Election Code § 204.021 states, "An unexpired term in the office of United States representative may be filled only by a special election in the same manner as provided by Chapter 203 for the legislature..."

[gondramB]

Thank you for that info.

Have you seen the latest - rumors that Delay may run after all?

[H. Paul Pressler IV]

Thanks.