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 guess Austin is as anti-Repub as New Jersey.
It is because the Rats think DeLay would lose the election and they want that victory. If that happened then the Rats could use DeLay as their whipping boy much the way they did Newt Gingrich.
Sam Sparks has a reputation as a liberal Judge, at least in my book. The Dems go to him to get favorable rulings.
Appointed by a Republican? So was Souter!
Sparks, Sam
http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2245
Born 1939 in Austin, TX
Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, Western District of Texas
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on October 1, 1991
It is not unreasonable to have a 7 week deadline. A 7 month deadline is unreasonable.
"Texas law was clearly intended to keep anyone from pulling a Lautenberg-type stunt "
Actually, *New Jersey* law clearly intended to keep anyone from pulling a Lautenberg-type stunt but it didnt stop them.
In this case, your reasoning is invalid. It's not an 'end run' of a law to fulfill the requirements of the law, that makes no sense. If they wanted off the ballot so bad they were willing to move out of state, why stop them? It's *fulfilling* the legal requirements.
"judge is a law-and-order type who seems to have taken strong offense at someone transparently mocking the law with this clever approach."
Wrong. The Judge is anti-law-and-order in other cases, so that cant be his modus operandi.
Let's get real here. Terry Keel successfully showed in January that other candidates to the office he was seeking failed to meet the letter of the election. Yet, in the interest of moving elections forward, the judges let the candidates stay on the ballot, arguing that the interests of open election overcame the technical deficiencies of their submissions to be on the ballot.
In this case, the letter of the law allows for candidates to withdraw if they are ineligible for the office. To use your argumentation, if a 17-year-old accidently (or on purpose) won a primary race, we would be required to keep that person on the ballot, even in cases where it was uncovered well before the election. That doesnt make sense.
"No one believes that Delay established a residence in Virginia for any reason but to get himself booted from the ballot. "
I dont believe that. I believe Delay wants to stay plugged into politics, hence his north Virginia residency.
But, it doesnt matter what his *reasons* for making himself ineligible to be a candidate, the plain fact is that we have a Judge forcing an ineligible person to be the candidate for a party who wishes to replace him.
"If Delay hadn't made this all about himself,"
Blech. He gave up his political career, and the only people who want DeLay on the ballot now are ... Democrats.
This is about Democrats that, after years of trying to do him in, are so desperate to run against Delay that they are insisting he remain on ballots. Oh, the irony!
PS. If you cared about 'the greater good of the party' you wouldn't whine about DeLay.
"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.
DeLay wanted out of the race, so he claimed he moved to VA. The problem is his residency only matters *on election day*.
--R.
Yes, nominees can be replaced if they die or become disabled prior to a general election. But they cannot be replaced (under the old rules, which may or may not apply here) if they merely withdraw from the race, which is what DeLay did. He did not research thoroughly what could happen if he bailed out prematurely.
You are exactly right. I am offended by the posts that state because New Jersey is corrupt and has justice for sale, Texas should,too. Two wrongs don't make a right.
What many of these drive-by posters don't realize is that the NJ law was stricter and more rational (see my #85). There was a very specific reason for NJ to have the deadline they did. And certainly some deadline is necessary.
"DeLay can get off the ballot if he wants by withdrawing. He won't do that."
This may mean that for all practical purposes Lampson is opposed only by the "ghost" of Tom DeLay!
:I asume Delay offered such "facts" from "another public record".
"only the House can declare him ineligible due to residency"
No, they just have the final word, if they wish, after the election.
"Sec. 141.001. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC OFFICE... (c)Subsection (a) does not apply to an office for which the federal or state constitution or a statute outside this code prescribes exclusive eligibility requirements."
:By construction- any part of the Texas Election law without this disclaimer does apply to such offices.
The appellate ruling(s) will be informative.
Of course he does. You haven't paid attention to SSS for very long, have you?
Since when do Democratic Party spokeswomen "confirm" Federal rulings? ;)
"New Jersey's election laws are likely different, or possibly the situation was different as well. "
New Jersey law was crystal clear - the replacement of Torricelli violated the election law, the deadline for replacing a candidate had long-since passed. 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.
What was different was that it was deemed a higher calling to have the 'right' candidates in an election, by the NJ kangaroo justices. That interest overrode the meaningless deadlines and election-law specfics.
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.
"Sparks barred Texas GOP chairwoman Tina Benkiser from “certifying to the Texas Secretary of State any candidate other than Tom DeLay to appear on the ballot in the 2006 general election as the Republican nominee for the United States House of Representatives from Texas District 22.”"
YET SPARKS ADMIST DELAY MAY ACTUALLY *BE* INELIGIBLE! ...
""There is evidence DeLay is not going to be eligible to be elected to the United States House of Representatives in the upcoming general election,” Sparks wrote in his order. "DeLay himself testified that he does not know what will happen in his life in November, stating only that he plans to live in Virginia ‘indefinitely.’”
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/14979384.htm
Sparks is handing the Democrats an election on a silver platter. Likely, Sparks will rule - After the GOP votes vote for DeLay anyway - that since DeLay cant serve, Lampson wins ... or some such nonsense.
Like I said, Dems and Repubs are subject to different standards.
Good arguments--I can only wonder why the judge who heard them and compared it to the law found differently.
Delay has been a great contributor to conservative strength at a federal level, and we owe him a lot. He's had some great victories. But his time was up and he has made his exit immeasurably worse by dithering until after the primary and trying to exploit a loophole to violate the spirit of the law. Yes, Lautenberg was worse, but they're both wrong, and that's what the judge found.
I'll "whine" as much as I like, secure in the knowledge it's not going to make an ounce of difference in the election outcome in TX-22.
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.