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.
It sure as heck can. Nobody has a constitutional right to represent any political party in an election.
That is not a prediction. I can give a lecture on probability theory if you like. Well, as to an actual Campbell victory, that you correctly "predicted" as not happening.
Your spite is not that you couldn't fan the Earle charges enough to dump DeLay in the primaries, but that if DeLay were replaced, it would not be with Campbell.
-PJ
"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."
The only common theme is that the Democrats get what the Democrats want.
"'Judge Sidney Fitzwater in Dallas ... went on to rule that Mr. Cheney cannot be considered an inhabitant of Texas, given his "intent that Wyoming be his place of habitation." This intent was evidenced, in part, by his notification to "the United States Secret Service that his primary residence is his home in Jackson Hole, Wyoming."
This ruling was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on December 7, 2000.'"
This is one reason why I consider the Sparks ruling suspicious. Someone says they are ineligible, and has a declaration of residency to back it up, and a Judge is *forcing* that person to say they are? It makes no sense.
I did create ranges, but I stated in advance the 60% expectation for DeLay and my over/under for DeLay was 60%. What else do you want?
Your spite is not that you couldn't fan the Earle charges enough to dump DeLay in the primaries, but that if DeLay were replaced, it would not be with Campbell.
The Ronnie Earle charges are politically based. I never "fanned" them. I never suggested that DeLay be replaced with Campbell. You're just making stuff up.
Then you support Lampson.
"This is one reason why I consider the Sparks ruling suspicious. Someone says they are ineligible, and has a declaration of residency to back it up, and a Judge is *forcing* that person to say they are? It makes no sense."
Except of course that DeLay kept his house in Texas - his wife still lives there. Oops.
--D.
Of course a Party can- and should- determine beforehand if someone will not be an inhabitant at such and such a date. Reasonable people, and the law, only ask evidence for a conclusion.
Kooks demand clairvoyance.
If Delay somehow managed not to ever clearly tell Benkiser that he will be an inhabitant of Virginia on the election (instead of just that he is presently an inhabitant) then he deserved to lose for such an error. But I seriously doubt that is the fact.
This makes no sense.
I also disagree with the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling. Unfortunately the US Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal.
It was far more drastic than this case, since it was in October, and here we are talking about June when the decision was finalized.
I have to disagree with that. Delay is arguing that a candidate can become ineligible, regardless or State election laws, by simply renting an apartment in another state. Yes delay registered to vote there and is likely a legal resident there now, but he could just as easily switch his residency back to Texas before the day of the election. He still own his home there and hasn't moved his possessions out of it.
The US Constitution requires he be a resident of the state when elected. It doesn't say that he has to be a resident of the state to be a candidate.
Delay is saying that the election laws of every state that restrict candidates from withdrawing after a certain date can be circumvented and nullified by the candidate simply changing their official residence to a place in another state, even though they can change if back pretty much at will.
YET SPARKS ADMIST DELAY MAY ACTUALLY *BE* INELIGIBLE!
Yea. Sparks admits that if Delay chooses to remain a resident of Virginia, he would be ineligible to hold the office. However, since Delay can choose to once again designate his Texas home as his residence, his eligibility is a matter of choice and really can't be determined until election day.
Even candidates who are declared ineligible cannot be replaced on the ballot within 74 days of the election in Texas.
Do you know of a single case where someone was ruled ineligible to run in a congressional election before election day under the US Constitution because they were not a resident of that State? I don't.
In this case, the judge has *forbidden* the GOP to state that DeLay is 'ineligible to serve'... 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.
He's not ineligible, he's unwilling, and it's too late for him to withdraw. For him to be eligible he simply needs to be a resident on election day, and there is nothing preventing him from being a resident on election day.
If Delay remains a resident of Virginia, he will become ineligible on election day. He is still currently eligible to run for that office.
If he chooses to remain a resident of Virginia, he will make himself ineligible on election day and even if he were to get the most votes he would not be the winner of the election.
Sparks is handing the Democrats an election on a silver platter.
Sparks, unlike the New Jersey Supreme Court in the Torricelli case, is ruling according to the law.
If someone is handing the Democrats the election on a silver platter with this circus act, it's Delay.
He's the legal, Republican candidate. He can either accept the responsibility he took on when he ran in the primary and do his best to win the election, or he can concede defeat.
Likely, Sparks will rule - After the GOP votes vote for DeLay anyway - that since DeLay cant serve, Lampson wins ... or some such nonsense.
Delay better be prepared to change his residency back and run for office. However, he may have already ruined his chance to win at this point. He's the one that chose to try this risky stunt of trying to be declared ineligible in a way that had never been done before and flies in the face of election long standing election laws across the nation.
Pure arrogant, stupidity in my opinion.
Hopefully the people of his district will forgive that and vote for him anyway in the very likely event that he will have to run for his house seat.
"I'll send him $100 if he says "........the courts won't let me quit. I am going to run and I am going to win!"
It would be prudent at this point in time for Texas Republicans to muster support and respectfully request that DeLay withdraw his resignation.
But since Delay intended to provide Benkiser evidence of his ineligiblilty on election day- and mentioned election day in his letter to Benkiser- I find that hard to believe.
The letter to Benkiser is misconstrued by the judge, though admittedly it is ambiguous.
Doesn't enter into it.
Just where he would be an inhabitant on election day.
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.