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.
Yes, and it also provides for replacing a candidate who becomes ineligible.
I guess other people can interpret the law differently than I do, but I don't think this is really a close call.
If the 5th Circuit affirms the decision, it's back to law school for me.
A ruling on "inhabitant" that was unanimously upheld by the Fifith Circuit.
" The record shows that Secretary Cheney has both a physical presence within the state of Wyoming and the intent that Wyoming be his place of habitation. It is undisputed that he was born, raised, educated, and married in Wyoming and represented the state as a Member of Congress for six terms. After additional public service, he eventually moved to Dallas, Texas to become the Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton Corporation ("Halliburton"). On or about July 21, 2000 Secretary Cheney declared his intent to return to his home state of Wyoming. On or after that date, and before today, he traveled to Wyoming and registered to vote there, requested withdrawal of his Texas voter registration, voted in Wyoming in two elections, obtained a Wyoming driver's license (which, in turn, resulted in the voiding of his Texas license), and sold his Texas house. He advised the United States Secret Service that his primary residence is his home in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and he retired from employment with Halliburton. "
fwiw.. To my knowledge, he is the only "Company man" aka CIA head to serve as POTUS.
The district court decision was on December 1, 2000, and the Fifth Circuit heard argument and entered a one-line affirmance on December 7th: "All requested relief is DENIED."
The problem is that Judge Sparks was not asked where DeLay currently has residency. In the ruling, Sparks says he assumes that DeLay is currently a resident of Virginia. The legal question is where will DeLay be a resident as of election day. Sparks and noone else (including DeLay) can divine the future.
According to the law, DeLay is not ineligible. It would be Unconstitutional for the RPT to make that determination. The RPT can't add qualifications not found in the US Constitution.
Yes, but I believe Mr. Campbell is not the preferred candidate (excepting Delay himself) of either the party or the local voters, is he?
62% of Republican voters preferred the corrupt DeLay. So Campbell didn't make it through the primary. A majority of general election voters will not vote for DeLay. Neither Campbell nor DeLay is the preferred candidate of the party and local voters.
If the race is DeLay vs. Lampson, Lampson wins.
If the race were Campbell vs. Lampson, Campbell would have won. That's why I supported Campbell, because I wanted a Republican to represent TX22.
Just where did you get that? dead people have been elected, clearly ineligible, and the second place finisher was not seated. a special election would be called.
"Of course I haven't been able to read the ruling. Neither have you or anyone else"
Wrong.
http://www.lonestarproject.net/files/sparks.pdf
Of course they're on the Dems side, but they have the ruling up, and have had it up all morning.
Of course I read the decision before I started making statements about it, unlike some people who just like to make stuff up and then get angry about it.
--R.
Question of the day:
Do Democrats LOVE Tom DeLay?
Also: If the race is DeLay vs. Lampson, Lampson wins.
If the race were Campbell vs. Lampson, Campbell would have won.
Your fantastic prognostication skills did not extend to predicting the DeLay-Campbell race properly.
Yeah, I predicted DeLay would win with 60% of the vote (see over-under). DeLay won with 62%. I concede I was off on that. But I was certainly closer than anyone else!
You are confusing me wanting Campbell to win the primary and me predicting Campbell would win the primary. I predicted both DeLay's margin of victory and his eventual problems in the general with uncanny accuracy.
I should have figured you didn't really need any help defending yourself. :)
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.