"I can't speak to the intricacies of the law, but I can speak to common sense. I think this kind of law was put into place in order to force the parties to abide by the results of primaries."
Correct. The real danger the law was intended to prevent is having political parties force people off the ballot and undermine primary election decisions.
"It seems to make little sense to force a candidate to run against his will. Certainly it is to a party's disadvantage to change candidates so, other than the New Jersey rule that is in place specifically for the benefit of the state administering elections, there is no reason to have this rule, other than to allow free reign to unscrupulous political operatives."
I agree with you. I'd also agree with the Judge's ruling if it was a case of GOP just trying to change a candidate on a whim. Although the Dems are putting it that way, the way I see it, it is not. Loophole or not, they are legitimately claiming a change of residence (he voted in Virginia) that enables them to declare the candidate ineligible. IMHO, the Judge ruled incorrectly.
The Texas lege is on notice to consider changes to rectify the law (or not).
There was too much evidence that DeLay had not really changed his residence, and that it was a sham. His wife still lived in Texas in the home he owns, and DeLay testified he did not know where he would be living on election day.