Replies

"Not being a Texan, I can't claim to understand the state's laws. But the law as quoted above makes little sense. Suppose a candidate wins his/her primary, then is diagnosed with a serious illness -- or commits a serious crime -- and cannot campaign. Does Texas law nevertheless insist that candidate can't withdraw from the race?

I understand the need for stability in the electoral process, but a blanket law that says no withdrawals are possible after another party has a nominee seems to defy common sense."

Very good point.

If DeLay really does lose on appeal (I give it 50/50, Sparks bent over backwards to screw the GOP), I suspect the law will be changed. As a Texan, I'd support a change in the law even if it helps the Demos out of a mess here and there; it's nutty to force people on the ballot if/when they want off for legitimate serious reason and there is sufficient time and process for an orderly replacement.

...it's nutty to force people on the ballot if/when they want off for legitimate serious reason and there is sufficient time and process for an orderly replacement.

I agree. It's one of those common sense issues that shouldn't have any partisanship attached to it at all, but of course the rabid partisans will still fight even over something like this.

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. I.e., to prevent them from parachuting in a new candidate against the will of the people. Probably a Progressive Era thing.

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.