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.
I would love to see this blow back up in the Dems faces. DeLay should just go into full out re-election mode.
In IL, Lane Evans, who has Parkinsons, resigns like two days AFTER the primary. Now, the candidate gets to be hand-picked, robbing the voters of their say.
I am sick of these underhanded tactics.
If it is indeed TX law, so be it. DeLay should just go for it. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it- Dems.
What is Sparks' motive for this, anyway? Do you have any cites to show he's a lib symp? I know that being appointed by Bush 1 doesn't guarantee conservativism, but there were no shortage of TX conservatives to appoint to the bench (vs. New Hampshire crypto-liberalism of the Souter type.)
If you know that this guy has a reputation for favoring Democrats or liberals in Texas, post it here. If not, you're blowing smoke.
I'm waiting to see if this appeal goes anywhere with the 5th--I have no idea how they view ballot-access issues--but if Delay's appeal fails, I hope that calmer heads in the RNCC accept that this seat will be lost for one term and ONE TERM only and resist the urge to pour millions of dollars down a rathole to prove a point.
Delay knows he can't win. This is difficult to watch happen.
Watch: this will backfire on the libs. :)
If DeLay wins the election, and is ruled ineligible to serve, then the seat would be vacant and Governor Perry would need to call a special election. It would be a similar situation to when a dead candidate wins the election---think Mel Carnahan in the 2000 Missouri Senate race or Patsy Mink in the 2002 Hawaii 2nd CD race.
I was responding to MNJohnnie who doesn't seem to understand the distinction between removing DeLay's name from the ballot and replacing him. If all that was desired was removing DeLay from the ballot, that is possible. That's all I was saying.
I advocated keeping our district Republican. Recall that I supported Tom Campbell in the primary.
In election litigation, the courts almost invariably interpret the statute to permit the voters an opportunity to make the decision. Remember the Florida Supremes and the hanging/swinging chads?
So it is written, so shall it be done.
Since Delay should have NEVER be run out by the Republican establishment, I'm fine with the ruling.
IMO, they SHOULD be forced to allow Delay to run. Either let him run or give up the seat as a consequnece for being backstabbing spineless RINO's.
Whether this is legally sound, I don't know. And don't particularly care at this point. Earle's abusing the law anyway.
Sam Sparks has helped Liberals on many other cases, like redistricting and affirmative action. IMHO, he's a liberal Judge. Examples:
Here is a case where Sam Sparks went to bat for Planned Parenthood but got slapped down:
"he judge's ruling lifts an injunction that prevented the enforcement of a Texas budget provision that blocked federal family planning funding from going to state family planning clinics that provide abortion services (Khanna, Houston Chronicle, 3/16). The ruling orders U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, who issued the injunction in 2003, to re-examine the issue and dismiss the injunction, the San Antonio Express-News reports. However, until Sparks is able to review the case, the state Department of Health will continue to honor the injunction and provide federal funding to Planned Parenthood affiliates and other abortion providers, a department official said, according to the Express-News (Contreras, San Antonio Express-News, 3/17)."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=21545
Sparks was also overrruled by the 5th circuit in the famous Hopwood case:
After an eight day bench trial in May of 1994, Judge Sparks issued his ruling on August 19, 1994. He determined that the University could continue to use the racial preferences which had been at issue in the litigation.[2]. In his ruling he noted that while it was "regrettable that affirmative action programs are still needed in our society," it was a still "a necessity" until society could overcome its legacy of institutional racism. Thereupon, the four plaintiffs appealed the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (which heard appellate oral arguments in the case on August 8, 1995).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopwood_v._Texas
""Sam Sparks has a reputation as a liberal Judge, at least in my book. The Dems go to him to get favorable rulings."
The GOP moved the case to Federal Court, not the Dems. ""
Er, the GOP was the *defendent* here.
The Dems are the ones who brought it into court.
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.
stupid activist judge.
Sparks said that DeLay might be ineligible in the future. Sparks said that the residency test in on election day, and that noone knows which state DeLay will inhabit in November.
Well, the only problem with that is ... that Delay *is* in fact 'ineligible to serve'. He just voted in the Virginia primary and is a Virginia legal resident at this point.
There is nothing there to indicate DeLay is ineligible. The Constitution only requires that a candidate be an inhabitant of the state he is to represent "when elected". Noone knows where DeLay will live in November. In fact, many people on this thread are encouraging DeLay to run for re-election. That means they advocate DeLay return to Texas so he is eligible.
No, he didn't.
The Republican Party forced him out and he was a "good soldier" and did as they wanted him to do the way they wanted it done.
He owes them nothing.
But I still want him to run, I never wanted him gone in the first place.
If DeLay promises to resign after winning, and a Republican would be able to run in a special election, why can't he win? Hawaii Democrats voted for a dead woman in order to be able to elect a Democrat in a special election, and they aren't any smarter than Texas Republicans.
Oh, and if Lampson wins this November, he'll be a lot tougher to beat in 2008 than he would as a non-incumbent in a special election in December of 2006.
Interesting. How many fed. judges ever get overruled by the district court? This guy got slapped twice and in both cases taking the side of the left. I suspect judicial senility.
Why can't he win? Voters may not trust DeLay keep his promise to resign.
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.