"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.
What is Sparks' motive for this, anyway? Do you have any cites to show he's a lib symp? I know that being appointed by Bush 1 doesn't guarantee conservativism, but there were no shortage of TX conservatives to appoint to the bench (vs. New Hampshire crypto-liberalism of the Souter type.)
If you know that this guy has a reputation for favoring Democrats or liberals in Texas, post it here. If not, you're blowing smoke.
If DeLay wins the election, and is ruled ineligible to serve, then the seat would be vacant and Governor Perry would need to call a special election. It would be a similar situation to when a dead candidate wins the election---think Mel Carnahan in the 2000 Missouri Senate race or Patsy Mink in the 2002 Hawaii 2nd CD race.
Sparks said that DeLay might be ineligible in the future. Sparks said that the residency test in on election day, and that noone knows which state DeLay will inhabit in November.
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.
There is nothing there to indicate DeLay is ineligible. The Constitution only requires that a candidate be an inhabitant of the state he is to represent "when elected". Noone knows where DeLay will live in November. In fact, many people on this thread are encouraging DeLay to run for re-election. That means they advocate DeLay return to Texas so he is eligible.
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.