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 think Delay needs to stay on the ballot. Just a reality check. I think it's wrong to hold a primary, win it, then decide you might lose, and try to run a different primary basically. Perhaps the rats only voted for Lampson as a good match up against Delay. This do-over crap is wrong IMHO. I feel the same way about Lieberman. He either runs as a Rat, or an independent. Not both. It's just not fair sportsmanship to do it this way. Delay was trying to game election law. The Republicans can still rally around one candidate, have them petition to run as an independent, and still win the seat. It's the right way to do it.
>>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.<<
Does anybody know the 5th circuit's bias?
This is my list:
5th Circuit Court of Appeals
Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas
Edith H. Jones - Reagan
Carolyn Dineen King - Carter
E. Grady Jolly - Reagan
Patrick E. Higginbotham - Reagan
W. Eugene Davis - Reagan
Jerry E. Smith - Reagan
Jacques L. Wiener, Jr. - Bush I
Rhesa H. Barksdale - Bush I
Emilio M. Garza - Bush I
Harold R. DeMoss, Jr. - Bush I
Fortunato P. Benavides - Clinton
Carl E. Stewart - Clinton
James L. Dennis - Clinton
Edith Brown Clement - Bush II
Edwards Charles Prado - Bush II
Priscilla Richman Owen - Bush II
Vacant Seat
So you would think the Republicans should be able to get a fair hearing unless they get a really bad judge draw.
There wasn't any reason for Delay to retire unless he was guilty. If his name is on the ballot and he wins, that's a mandate of the people and he should continue to serve.
He should want to come back tougher than ever just to hand the DUmocrats their hats for a few more cycles!
Does anybody know the 5th circuit's bias?
"Also, the determination is made based on the evidence, not the bare, unsupported assertion of a candidate."
There was more than mere 'assertion' to DeLay's change of residence. He voted in Virginia!
"Get with the program. Whether someone meets the Constitutional residency (inhabitant) eligibility requirement can only be determined as of election day."
The statement that someone can only be held 'ineligible' on election day and no prior determination can be made of such mocks the Texas law, as it specifically is providing a provision for prior ineligibility. People can certainly plan to be residents of one state or another at dates certain.
"The decision makes perfect sense. You're just being obtuse."
No. "Obtuse" is keeping a man on the ballot 5 months prior to an election despite his declaration of ineligibility for office, ignoring a provision in the Texas laws that provides for such a determination. Judge Sparks is giving the Texas GOP a catch-22; elections and ballots shouldnt be about that.
Consider Texas elections implications, if a primary vote winner found he/she couldnt serve (let's say they find they have terminal cancer requiring severe treatment) - are we better off letting the election default to the other party and/or forcing a special election, keeping this person on the ballot, than have a more sane approach of letting the person have the party select a replacement? If you really think this ruling was correct, I hope you at least agree that the outcome is not the best we can do and there should be some change in our Texas election law.
"Except of course that DeLay kept his house in Texas - his wife still lives there. Oops. "
So? Many people have houses in multiple states. Ask Kerry.
He's a Virginia voter now. Question: Is Delay eligible to run for Congress in Virginia?
"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."
Very good point.
If DeLay really does lose on appeal (I give it 50/50, Sparks bent over backwards to screw the GOP), I suspect the law will be changed. As a Texan, I'd support a change in the law even if it helps the Demos out of a mess here and there; it's nutty to force people on the ballot if/when they want off for legitimate serious reason and there is sufficient time and process for an orderly replacement.
I agree. It's one of those common sense issues that shouldn't have any partisanship attached to it at all, but of course the rabid partisans will still fight even over something like this.
Did you not catch the fact that Texas law says he has to be replaced because he moved???
Did you not catch the fact that Texas law says he has to be replaced because he moved???
DeLay can not take the seat if he wins. because he is not a resident of the state.
The voters ARE being disenfranchised here.
"Delay said on Hannity's radio show he is now a citizen of Virginia and can show proof. He said he voted in a recent GOP primary there so how can he legally be kept on the ballot in Texas if he's not a resident?"
HE CAN'T BE.
LOOK FOLKS...SPARKS IS A LIBERAL. Yeah...he was appointed by a Republican....but he is an ole democrat....
There are many here in Texas who push as a Republican..because that can't get favor ...or win an election any other way.
Sparks knew somebody. Period
"Delay said on Hannity's radio show he is now a citizen of Virginia and can show proof. He said he voted in a recent GOP primary there so how can he legally be kept on the ballot in Texas if he's not a resident?"
HE CAN'T BE.
LOOK FOLKS...SPARKS IS A LIBERAL. Yeah...he was appointed by a Republican....but he is an ole democrat....
There are many here in Texas who push as a Republican..because that can't get favor ...or win an election any other way.
Sparks knew somebody. Period
You have no idea what you are talking about.
DELAY IS VERY POPULAR IN HIS DISTRICT. Look how much he won by in a 4 way primary. Surveys showed he would win by at least 6 points when he dropped out.
It had nothing to do with whether he would win or lose.
The tops at the party were spineless gimps and let worries make their decision. Including Boehnhead!
The idea was that Delay moving would take the whole corruption thing out.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
DELAY IS VERY POPULAR IN HIS DISTRICT. Look how much he won by in a 4 way primary. Surveys showed he would win by at least 6 points when he dropped out.
It had nothing to do with whether he would win or lose.
The tops at the party were spineless gimps and let worries make their decision. Including Boehnhead!
The idea was that Delay moving would take the whole corruption thing out.
No there are several examples of this. in the missouri case you are again mistaken. there was no special election because senators, unlike reps, can be appointed until the next regular national election. please tell me of one example of where the second place guy got the job.
It would be closer then Delay wanted and would generate a great deal of DNC support.
Moreover, your claims to be for a GOP 'victory' ring hollow since you have admitted not voting for Delay in the past.
He did not meet your 'purity' standards.
But I do not think George Washington could have met them either.
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.