"New Jersey ignored their own election laws in the name of "giving voters a competitive" election."
"I agree. However, NJ's law wasn't nearly as specific as the Texas law"
Why do you keep repeating this LIE?!?
It's an outrageous deception. New Jersey law was and is more specific and clear about ballot replacement and their deadlines. Torricelli passed the deadline. A very clear deadline that was written right into the text of the law.
Texas law is actually the less clear. Sparks rules both that 'ineligibility' only meant eligibility in the US Constitution, and then interpreted the residency requirement to be such that it couldnt even be assessed until after an election.
The interpretation here is murkier since Texas law clearly provides a valid replacement simply by a 'declaration of ineligibility'. Its not clear why, to me at least, someone cant say "hey, I'm ineligible" and show some proof/evidence and be done with it.
I read the NJ Supreme Court ruling and read the code they ruled did not exclude the replacement of the candidate's name on the ballot. I agree that their ruling did not seem like a reasonable interpretation of the law.
The Texas law is very explicit about the conditions in which a candidate can be replaced on the ballot. The candidate can be replaced on the ballot if they are determined to be ineligible before a certain date, I believe it's 74 days before the election.
After rereading the NJ Supreme Court decision and a few articles commenting on it, the things I saw as being vague didn't really have any bearing on why or how the NJ Court Ruled. They simply made some excuses by quoting some previous cases which did not represent the same situation and then ignored the law and ruled according to how they wanted to rule.
I still feel the Texas law is less vague, but regardless of if I'm right or wrong in that respect, it doesn't appear to have any bearing on that case or this case.
Texas law is actually the less clear. New Jersey law was and is more specific and clear about ballot replacement and their deadlines.
I disagree. The Texas law is very clear about deadlines and conditions under which the candidate can be replaced on the ballot.
Sparks rules both that 'ineligibility' only meant eligibility in the US Constitution...
Here's the relevant Texas Election Code:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/EL/content/htm/el.009.00.000141.00.htm#141.001.00
Note Section 141.001(c): (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.
If you feel that the Constitution's eligibility requirements aren't exclusive and can have additional State requirements as well, you're left with Delay being required to having maintained residency for the 12 months preceding the deadline for when he had to file to be on the primary ballot. There's no requirement listed that he must maintain that residency until the general election.
While that might be a technicality, it's no more of a technicality than Delay attempting to be declared ineligible because it's too late for him to withdraw from the election. However, that doesn't really matter since it appears that there isn't a lot of contention as to if it's the US Constitution's requirements that apply exclusively in this case.
...and then interpreted the residency requirement to be such that it couldn't even be assessed until after an election.
US Constitution. Article I, Section 2, paragraph 2:
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
Residency isn't required prior to being elected. The candidate must an inhabitant of the state "when elected".
How do you suggest that a Judge rule that the Republican Party Chairman properly ruled him ineligible based on him not being an inhabitant of the State on a date in the future when there is nothing keeping him from being an inhabitant of the State on that date?
The requirement of being an inhabitant of the state doesn't kick in until the election. He meets all the other requirements. He's eligible.
He's simply trying to do an end run around the law because he wants to withdraw after the cutoff date.
The Torricelli ruling was wrong. That doesn't mean that this Judge should also ignore the law like the NJ Supreme Court did.
The interpretation here is murkier since Texas law clearly provides a valid replacement simply by a 'declaration of ineligibility'.
That's not murky at all. It's very clear. If Delay is ineligible, he can be replaced on the ballot at this point. Texas law deferrers to the US Constitution's eligibility requirements for Congressmen. Those eligibility requirement are clear. Delay qualifies as an eligible candidate under those requirement at this time.
Its not clear why, to me at least, someone cant say "hey, I'm ineligible" and show some proof/evidence and be done with it.
A candidate doesn't declare themselves ineligible. In this case it's the Republican Party Chair who has that responsibility, and they do so according to the law and the US Constitution.
If a candidate just doesn't want to run, they have to withdraw before the deadline in order to be replaced on the ballot. Delay missed that date.