"You might as well have a dead man on the ballot."
Tom Delay is a virtual dead man. Mel Carnahan was an actual dead man and won a Senate seat in Missouri. Other than that I agree with your assessment.
 |
|
|
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.
Stockman won't even be on the ballot in November. He didn't get enough signatures to make it as an independent.
Probably because you are psychotic.
I advise you not to invest so much emotion in this because most probably you will be badly disappointed.
I am far less convinced that a Dem wave will take place in November than are most election junkies. I don't deny the obvious that a Dem wave would manifest if the election were held today, but so far as I know there were no elections held today.
I've known Senator Mike Jackson for years...I graduated with his son and was on the swim team with his daughter. Great guy. Hope he wins it!
Under state law, a political party cannot replace a nominee who resigns in mid-election.
______________
I have no idea what NJ law is on this, but apparently this ruling is in keeping with Texas law.
Two words: Toricelli/Lautenberg
I know, I know, different rules for different states. But this is just silly. Six months is plenty of time to replace a candidate on the ballot.
It would serve the Donks right if Delay came roaring back and spanked them into oblivion.
Yo! GMTA!
Oh, I hadn't heard that Stockman failed to get the signatures. Thanks, it may be Lampson unopposed then.
|
|
"You might as well have a dead man on the ballot."
Tom Delay is a virtual dead man. Mel Carnahan was an actual dead man and won a Senate seat in Missouri. Other than that I agree with your assessment. |
Are you just focused on a results-based outcome in this case, or do you have any concern for what the law actually provides?
The 'residence' DeLay has in Virginia is a condo he's owned for 12 years (from the court documents) and his wife is still living in Texas. The judge noted that the *only* residency requirement is in the US Consitution - that the candidate be resident in the state *on election day*. DeLay admitted during trial he could not say conclusively where he would be living at that time, and the judge accepted he was currently resident in VA.
Texas law says at this point, DeLay has to withdraw from the election. If he's not a resident on election day, then *Congress* gets to declare him ineligible - under Article 1, Section 5 only the House can declare him ineligible due to residency. Some of us seem to have more respect for that great document than others, it seems.
DeLay and the state party tried to get him out without formally withdrawing, and it failed. It seems the only thing he 'moved' to his 'residence' in VA was a car. Everything else was left in his house in South Bend County, TX. I gather the problem with withdrawing is that he can't, under Texas Election Code, since 'another party has held a primary' for that office(Chapter 145, Section 145.036 b(2), Texas Election Code).
The Deomcrats want DeLay on the ballot because it'll split the GOP vote - some people will vote for him, some will vote for 'whoever the GOP puts up as an independant'.
Appeals would go the the 5th, not the Texas SC.
--R.
I am thinking that AFTER a primary if a candidate pulls out, it is the same as forfeiting the election. At one time, a party could not replace a nominee who quit for personal reasons. I am trying to think of a case where that happened.
You're absolutely right. If he were to win, the Rats would then challenge the results saying that Delay isn't a resident of Texas. This same judge would probably concur.
-PJ
Or they could just vote for the Libertarian. Better than Lampson.
In Louisiana in 1968, the Republicans nominated a district attorney from the Baton Rouge area to challenge Sen. Russell Long. The D.A. pulled out of the race, and the Republicans did not offer a replacement candidate. So Long was unopposed for reelection. Now, I don't think the Republicans could have offered another candidate had they tried, which they did not do.
I hope he runs and wins and returns to Congress, how's them apples.
different states, different election laws...
There have been plenty of times when the primary winner dies before the general election, and nobody thinks much about it when a replacement is named.
This is only slightly different in that DeLay made himself ineligible for election. I guess he could just shoot himself. That would make the DUmmies happy.
"It would be so funny if DeLay won."
I wonder if this wasn't what the GOP appointed judge had in mind when he made his ruling.
Now, that would be taking one for the team!
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.