As Ney Quits, ‘Sore Loser’ Law Crops Up

The Wall Street Journal ^ | August 7, 2006 | Jeanne Cummings

[Clintonfatigued]

The Jack Abramoff scandal that rocked Capitol Hill last winter claimed its second electoral victim as Ohio Republican Rep. Bob Ney announced Monday he will abandon his re-election race. But as Republicans try to hold onto the seat, questions are arising over the “sore loser” provision in Ohio election law.

Ney, a 12-year incumbent, has not been charged. He has been named in several guilty pleas of Abramoff associates and federal officials have told him he is a target of the probe. Last month, Ralph Reed, the former Christian Coalition director and another Abramoff associate, lost a Republican primary lieutenant governor’s race that was dominated by his work for the former lobbyist who has plead guilty to trying to bribe lawmakers.

The move is likely to improve chances that the mostly rural seat remains Republican. A special primary is expected to be scheduled before the Aug. 23 deadline for candidate filings, but several issues are likely to be hashed out in court before the primary.

State Sen. Joy Padgett, Ney’s hand-picked successor for his seat, could fall under a little-known provision of Ohio election law, dubbed the “sore loser” provision. It prevents a candidate who loses in one primary from running in another during the same election cycle. Earlier this year, Padgett was the primary running mate of gubernatorial hopeful James Petro, who lost to the ticket of Ken Blackwell and his running mate, Ohio State Rep. Tom Raga.

Even if Padgett succeeds in getting her name on the new primary ballot, the controversy could invite other Republicans to jump into the unexpected race. James Harris, who lost to Ney in the Republican primary in May, said he’s considering running again — although the sore loser provision may apply to him, too.

[Clintonfatigued]

The race to succeed Bob Ney may be more complicated than initially expected. Ohio Freepers need to stay tuned.

[NeoCaveman]

Here's the latest from Scott Pullins

http://www.pullinsreport.com/

Sore Loser Doesn't Seem to Apply to Padgett

18th CD Update - Hottinger Already Out

[MikeA]

What a really amazingly stupid law. That thing should be struck down as unconstitutional.

[NeoCaveman]

It was designed to stop Strickland from running for the House and the Governorship at the same time:

We could call it a Liberman law. As it would have pre-empted Liberman's dual run in 2000 and his sore loseman indy filing for 2006.

[Clintonfatigued]

The key tern is "Doesn't seem to", which means that the 'Rats can file a frivolous lawsuit to keep Padgeett from getting her campaign started. Until we hear something definite, anything can happen.

[NeoCaveman]

Oh that's for sure.

[martinidon]

What is stupid is we have two Republican congressmen (Ney and Delay) that campaigned in the primary for these seats and then stepped down after they won putting the Republicans in a difficult position. The current Republican leadership is a disaster and border line incompetent.

[Clintonfatigued]

Well, staying in the races would have been even worse.

[Hildy]

The current Republican leadership is a disaster and border line incompetent.

As is the Democrat leadership...I truly fear for this Country...no matter who wins....

[AuH2ORepublican]

"It was designed to stop Strickland from running for the House and the Governorship at the same time"

---

Article I of the U.S. Constitution lists as the only qualifications for election to the U.S. House of Representatives that the person be at least 25 years old, have been a U.S. citizen for at least 7 years and be a citizen of the state he represents. A state that attempts to establish additional criteria for election to the House is in violation of Article I of the Constitution. Preventing a candidate for federal office, through discriminatory means (i.e., not through neutral standards such as obtaining a certain number of signatures), from being on the ballot is as much a violation of Article I as ruling that such person is not eligible to be elected. For example, a law that prevents a person from being on a congressional ballot after having served X terms in office is just as unconstitutional as a law that prevents such person from being declared the winner in a congressional election. Thus, I believe that laws that prohibit someone from running for Congress other than for the constitutional qualifications (or for failure to meet reasonable neutral requirements such as gathering signatures) are unconstitutional.

A state could, though, ban someone from running for governor if he's a candidate for Congress, since the U.S. Constitution doesn't speak of the qualifications for state office.

[NeoCaveman]

A state could, though, ban someone from running for governor if he's a candidate for Congress, since the U.S. Constitution doesn't speak of the qualifications for state office.

That's what I think the statute attempted to prevent.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"That's what I think the statute attempted to prevent."

---

So does the statute allow a U.S. House candidate to run for the U.S. Senate simultaneously? If not, then I think it violates Article I.

[NeoCaveman]

I'm no expert on the statute, never heard of it more than a few hours ago.

But I think that scenario was already not permissable before this fairly new statute.

[martinidon]

I agree, but they should have made these decision before the primaries. One of Delays reason for doing this now is because the dims are using the indictment against him. (I think Ney is using this same excuse) What the hell did they think the dims would do? You can bet if a dim was running for office indicted for a crime or even associated with others involved with a crime the Republicans would use it. This is what pisses me off. In reality the Republicans should be increasing their majority but as it stands now we will be lucky if we can hold on to at least one branch.

[Clintonfatigued]

You're right about that. They obviously thought the partisan balance in their districts would politically insulate them, even though Ney's district is not overwhelmingly Republican.

[Liz]

BTTT

[SolidSupplySide]

So does the statute allow a U.S. House candidate to run for the U.S. Senate simultaneously? If not, then I think it violates Article I.

Texas had a law that prevented a person from simultaneously running for Vice President and Senator at the same time. Actually, I think it prevented anyone from simulatenously running for two offices. It was repealed to allow Lyndon Johnson to run for two offices at once in 1960. Lloyd Bentson used it, too, in 1988.

It was never litigated, so your assertion that such a law would be unconstitutional has not been disproven. But the law was repealed, indicating to me that in 1960, people thought it was Constitutional.

[srmorton]

I think the difference in these two is that Ney appears to be much more closely aligned with Abramoff than Delay ever was. It is possible that he could be indicted or, at the very least, subject of a plea bargain. Had Dey been indicted, he would have been ineligible to run so he is trying to do the right thing now to keep his seat in Republican hands.

Delay, on the other hand, is the victim of a prosecutor who was determined to bring charges against him whether the evidence warranted it or not. He finally got a Grand Jury to return the indictment, but it is very doubtful that Delay will ever be brought to trial, much less convicted. The Dems were still determined to make him the poster boy for their "culture of corruption" theme (which has lost its appeal since William Jefferson decided to hide $90,000 in his freezer). In Delay's situation, it's the Democrats that are responsible for his name still being on the ballot and IMO Delay should run and make sure their little scheme blows up in their faces. I think the people of his district are probably fed up with the Democrats trying to interfere with their ability to vote for the candidate of their choice and he would win back his seat easily.

[AntiGuv]

FWIW, it was the U.S. Term Limits case which definitively established that states cannot enact additional criteria for Congress. That was in 1995 iirc so it may very well be that in 1960 it was thought Texas could enforce such a regulation.