Judge's ruling keeps DeLay on ballot

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

[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.

[mysto]

If the 5th Circuit doesn't rule his way & declare him ineligible, he may not have a choice but to run... or else the Dimocrat Lampson might get his seat. I still think the voters in his district would vote for him anyway just to keep the seat Republican. I just think it's a waste of time and money to make DeLay run again, win, and resign, and then make his district have to hold another special election just to keep the seat GOP.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"But his time was up and he has made his exit immeasurably worse by dithering until after the primary and trying to exploit a loophole to violate the spirit of the law. Yes, Lautenberg was worse, but they're both wrong, and that's what the judge found."

Excuse me, but Delay requested a speedy trial for the charges against him to happen in December last year. He not only did not get the trial in December, but the court has postponed, and postponed when the trial would be, such that Delay, finally, resigned his seat. Now the same people that postponed his trial are now demanding that he run, even though, if he wins, he could not be accepted into the US House until the charges against him are taken care of.

Meanwhile he is still waiting for his speedy trail (see the 6th amendment).

[duhneece]

It must be that states differ, because this is what's going on in New Mexico:

Santa Fe doctor J. R. Damron, who won the Republican nomination without opposition in the June 6 primary election, officially dropped out of the race in the letter sent to the Secretary of State on Friday. And the man Republicans chose to replace Damron over the weekend quickly—former party chairman John Dendahl--quickly drew rebukes from Democrats.

[donmeaker]

He is pretty popular there.

The charges against Delay are bogus.

He could win in a walk, in fact, he encouraged the state legislature to modify his district to make it less Republican, because others needed the demographics more than he.

I know the area well.