• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Democrats want DeLay's name on ballot

moshquerade

moshquerade

No Lifer
Democrats want DeLay's name on ballot

Fri Jun 9, 12:15 AM ET

AUSTIN, Texas - The Texas Democratic Party won a temporary restraining order Thursday blocking the process that would name a replacement for Republican U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on the November ballot.

State District Judge Darlene Byrne ordered Texas GOP Chairwoman Tina Benkiser not to convene party officials to decide on DeLay's replacement until after a June 22 court hearing.

Democrats are trying to keep DeLay's name on the ballot, which would also keep his legal problems in front of voters. DeLay leaves Congress on Friday.

State Democratic Party Chairman Boyd Richie said Democrats are trying to keep the GOP from creating a "sham vacancy" for the Republican nomination for the 22nd Congressional District.

Richie said DeLay intentionally waited until after the primary to get out of the race, announcing he would abandon his re-election campaign and move to the Washington suburbs. He said the GOP then declared DeLay ineligible, assuming he would move from the state, and started a replacement nomination process while he was still in Congress and eligible for the ballot.

A phone call to the Texas Republican Party by The Associated Press wasn't immediately returned Thursday night.

Republican lawyers argued in court Thursday that DeLay's intent is the deciding factor, according to a report on the Austin American-Statesman Web site.

"The Democrats have resorted to their usual method of turning to the courthouse if they can't win at the ballot box," Gretchen Essell, communications director for the Republican Party of Texas, said in Friday editions of the San Antonio Express-News.

"We have followed the process that is delineated in the Texas Election Code. We are confident of the outcome," Essell said.

DeLay is awaiting trial on money laundering charges he says are politically motivated.
Click to expand...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060609/ap_on_go_co/delay_s_replacement

Repubs and Dems both do it, but clearly the Dems are showing they are afraid to take on anyone but DeLay here.
 
They feel that they can win by attacking the person, not the position
 
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Cheap political stunt that is countered with cheap legal tactics. Both parties should be so proud. :roll:
Click to expand...
QFT

all I want for Xmas is a relevant third party!

 
I don't want his name on the ballot, I want his name on the list of inmates of a federal prison serving time for political corruption.
 
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Cheap political stunt that is countered with cheap legal tactics. Both parties should be so proud. :roll:
Click to expand...
QFT

all I want for Xmas is a relevant third party!
Click to expand...

libertarianism?
 
A very logical step for the democrats---tie the issue up in court and basically cheat a set of election laws that probably never antisipated the issue would arise--and if the shoe were on the
other foot, there is no question that the Repubs would do the same and even faster.

Hopefully some sort of common sense decision that will set a precedent in other regions will be arrived at---so the voter is not robbed of proper choices and the trust level of both parties might
rise above the present low level cesspool each are mired in.--and when and if the Libertarians or any other third party also become anything but the present non-factors they are now--we can also
all hope a sense of fair play prevails in a bigger sandbox.
 
Originally posted by: amish
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Cheap political stunt that is countered with cheap legal tactics. Both parties should be so proud. :roll:
Click to expand...
QFT

all I want for Xmas is a relevant third party!
Click to expand...

libertarianism?
Click to expand...

Absent some issue as divisive as slavery a 3rd party is not really viable. The libertarians would be much better off if they focused their efforts towards making the Democrats the libertarian party in the same manner conservatives pushed the Rockefeller Republicans out of control of the Republican party.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
A very logical step for the democrats---tie the issue up in court and basically cheat a set of election laws that probably never antisipated the issue would arise--and if the shoe were on the
other foot, there is no question that the Repubs would do the same and even faster.

Hopefully some sort of common sense decision that will set a precedent in other regions will be arrived at---so the voter is not robbed of proper choices and the trust level of both parties might
rise above the present low level cesspool each are mired in.--and when and if the Libertarians or any other third party also become anything but the present non-factors they are now--we can also
all hope a sense of fair play prevails in a bigger sandbox.
Click to expand...

Very well put. I will say that I can hardly blame the Democrats for wanting to maximize the political traction they get from having the Speaker of the House under indictment, and it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

 
The funny thing is Dlay had his district lines redrew with more Democrats... Make your bad and lie in it buddy.
 
GOP can't replace DeLay on ballot, judge rules - turnabout is fair play

Republicans will not be allowed to name a new candidate to run for the recently vacated congressional seat of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, appointed to the federal bench by former President George H.W. Bush in 1989, sided with the Texas Democratic Party, which claimed that the veteran Sugar Land lawmaker bailed out of the fall campaign because he feared defeat.
Click to expand...
 
And the judge expects an appeal.

The Dems used the same arguement to run s smear campaign against the Republican Bush Sr because of the residence in Maine and against Cheney (Wyoming?).

A personal who is not living in the district should not be able to represent the district.

Otherwise anyone with a name recognition could get an apartment in a weak opponent's district just to bounce them and then two years later move on to another district, leaving the old district in a safe proxy.
 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
And the judge expects an appeal.

The Dems used the same arguement to run s smear campaign against the Republican Bush Sr because of the residence in Maine and against Cheney (Wyoming?).

A personal who is not living in the district should not be able to represent the district.

Otherwise anyone with a name recognition could get an apartment in a weak opponent's district just to bounce them and then two years later move on to another district, leaving the old district in a safe proxy.
Click to expand...

What's the name of raving token that ran for senator in Illinois while living in Maryland?

Regardless, it's a non-issue b/c it's quite obvious that DeLay is living in Texas.

But Sparks pointed out in his ruling that the Constitution requires only that an otherwise qualified candidate for Congress be an ?inhabitant? of the state he or she seeks to represent. The Democrats argued last week in Sparks? courtroom that DeLay still maintained his home in Sugar Land even after switching his driver?s license and voter registration to Alexandria, Va.
Click to expand...
So when DeLay has to appear in court will he be in a hotel . . . or staying with his wife . . . in their house?
 
Sometimes you gotta take your medicine. I was less than keen on the Torricelli switch that was allowed to happen and I feel the same way this time around as well. Delay is no friend to the Republican party.......
 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
They feel that they can win by attacking the person, not the position
Click to expand...

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Cheap political stunt that is countered with cheap legal tactics. Both parties should be so proud. :roll:
Click to expand...

The whole American system is pathetic now.

So sad

rose.gif
 
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, appointed to the federal bench by former President George H.W. Bush in 1989, sided with the Texas Democratic Party, which claimed that the veteran Sugar Land lawmaker bailed out of the fall campaign because he feared defeat.
Click to expand...
Not exactly true. He bailed out because he knew he would lose but needed money for his legal defense. By waiting until the last minute to pull out, he can maximize the amount of campaign contributions he will use for his forthcoming legal defense. That cunning manuever is biting him in his ass now.

 
Him and the GOP as well. Now the voters get to decide if they want a man who doesn't even want to represent them.
 
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Him and the GOP as well. Now the voters get to decide if they want a man who doesn't even want to represent them.
Click to expand...

Yup that will go down well with voters: Being forced to come back to the district and run a campaign because the court ordered so! 😀

Interesting comments from a Judge appointed by republicans and good to see he has due regard for the rule of law.
Judge Sparks ruled that while Mr. DeLay was free to withdraw, the Republicans may not remove his name from the ballot, because there was no residency requirement for the House in the Constitution except that a candidate "when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen." No one could yet say where Mr. DeLay would be living on Election Day, Nov. 7, the judge said. To allow such a switch on the ballot would be to illegally disadvantage the Democrats, he said.

"Political acumen, strategy and manufactured evidence, even combined with a sound policy in mind, cannot override the Constitution," Judge Sparks said. He cast doubt on some of the Republican evidence, noting that Mr. DeLay had sent a draft of his letter announcing his move to Virginia to Ms. Benkiser for editing.

Texas law rules out replacement of names on the ballot except under narrow circumstances to prevent parties from seeking advantages by suddenly switching candidates. "This would be a serious abuse of the election system and a fraud on the voters, which the court will not condone," Judge Sparks ruled. He said the Constitution, not Texas law, prevailed.
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top