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 advocated keeping our district Republican. Recall that I supported Tom Campbell in the primary."
Nonsense. DeLay can beat the stuffing out of Lampson.
All he needs to say is:
"I intend to win and then resign, so there will be a special election to replace me. This was brought about because the Texas Democrat party hates me so much that they would not let a replacement take my place in the November election."
Hopefully DeLay will use some of his idle time return the favor and campaign for Tom Tancredo.
I don't think that representatives can be appointed since the Constitution made them electable only by the people.
"Voters may not trust DeLay keep his promise to resign."
You know as well as I do that the Texas Election Code allows for the replacement of a candidate who dies before the election.
I agree with you that the court ignored the relatively clear meaning of the law and instead decided replace it with their own decision. However, the NJ law is not as clear and explicit at the Texas election law.
I don't think that the Republicans are even trying to suggest that he can be considered ineligible under Texas law or can withdraw and be replaced.
They are claiming that because Delay isn't a resident of Texas he isn't and eligible candidate under the US Constitution. However, the US Constitution's requirements appear to only require that a candidate be a resident when he is elected.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
Delay still has a house in Texas and is occupying it at least at times. The only thing preventing him from being a resident of Texas is his own choice.
He's trying to undermine the authority of the States (all the States, not just Texas) to regulate their own elections with what might be considered a novel technicality at best.
That's not not an action I would expect from someone who wishes to be considered a leader among small government conservatives.
I don't think that Earle's charges against him have merit. From what I've seen his past techniques that have earned him criticism have been more of what I would qualify as aggressive rather than underhanded.
This particular act I consider underhanded, and also damaging to our nation's laws and the structure of our government if he's successful.
While we really can't afford to lose his seat in Congress to a democrat, and the Republicans in his district deserve to have a candidate from their party on the ticket, I hope this Judge's ruling stands.
Delay is the Republican candidate in that race. The person trying to keep Republicans from having the ability to vote for their party's candidate, the one the selected in the primary, is Delay himself. According to Texas law it's too late for him to back out. He needs to abide by the law.
To be honest, his actions in this case are making me question his other actions a bit more than I had been.
"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."
You are right... There is another bonus...
If Delay actually *campaigns* he can pummel Lampson silly while not having to take any of the negative election cr*p ... since any 'anti-Delay' ads wont have much effect on people who just are voting to keep the seat GOP.
THE GOP CAN STILL TURN A LEMON IN LEMONADE HERE.
"However, the NJ law is not as clear and explicit at the Texas election law."
Hogwash. NJ law had a clear deadline and it was violated by the replacement of Torricelli.
" Delay still has a house in Texas and is occupying it at least at times. The only thing preventing him from being a resident of Texas is his own choice."
John Kerry has 6 fabulous houses in at least 4 different states. Is he eligible to serve as Senator in all 4 states?
Why do you say that? We wouldn't have this problem if Campbell had won the primary. Campbell would have actually run for office!
my question exactly ... a "lightening rod" must be some sort of magic wand which decreases the mass of and/or the gravitational force acting upon the object to be lightened....
Ping. . .
I think it's a tough gambit to pull off, and it helped that the dead woman was lionized in the media and out of the picture instead of being controversial and still very much with us.
But it may be what they have to do, if the appeal goes nowhere.
I suspect that Lampson might be easier to knock off in 2008 than in 2006, because a Presidential vote will bring out a lot of voters who don't involve themselves in politics beyond party ID and won't know Lampson from Ted Kennedy. And because we'll have a strong standard bearer.
":I asume Delay offered such "facts" from "another public record"."
Why don't you read the decision instead of assuming?
The only factor claimed to make him 'ineligible' is his alleged non-residency. The problem being that the Constitution says residency only matters on the date of election. Given that DeLay maintains a residence in Texas (his wife is living there), it is far from clear he *isn't* a 'resident' of Texas for election purposes.
DeLay is simply trying to avoid the penalty for withdrawing (no GOP replacement candidate allowed) by claiming to be non-resident, and having the GOP executive declare him ineligible by such non-residency. The problem is they can't legally make that decision, since the Constitution isn't something that a state political party can overturn by fiat.
--R.
It all varies by state law. Some states have stricter requirements than others, I would imagine. Kerry could -run- for election in any of those states, likely, but it wouldn't change that he was most recently elected to represent Massachusetts for one full term.
What's also interesting is that in both the Carnahan case and Torricelli case, we are talking about the Senate. DeLay is House, and so was Patsy Mink. Mink died a week after the Hawaii primary and the Democrats demanded that she be kept on the ballot anyway for name recognition. She won posthumously.
-PJ
"Er, the GOP was the *defendent* here.
The Dems are the ones who brought it into court. "
Yes, and the GOP defendant had it removed to Spark's (Federal) court.
Read the decision.
--R.
In other words, does Texas law already declare him to be a non-resident? Would he still be eligible for in-state tuition at UT, for example? I don't know about the former, I am quite sure that the answer to the latter is "no".
And so your motive is clear: spite.
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.