|
determines whether the GOP can replace DeLay's name on the ballot or not.
Except under certain exceptional circumstances which do not apply, a candidate who withdraws from a race after the parties' primaries cannot be replaced on the ballot with a new candidate of the withdrawing candidate's party's choosing. That is precisely what the GOP wants to do.
This law is in place to protect against the danger of a situation where, first, a powerful incumbent declares that he is running for re-election and thereby discourages primary challengers in his own party and also discourages some challengers from an opposing party who would have run for an open seat but who would not have run against an incumbent and, second, the incumbent waits until after the primary and then withdraws to allow the party (which he influences) hand-pick his successor on the ballot. This is a fundamental protection of our democracy, and people of good faith within every party should support this rule. Moreover, this is precisely DeLay's situation.
DeLay waited until after both parties completed their primaries and only then announced that he was withdrawing from the race with these words: "after many weeks of personal prayerful thinking and analysis, I have come to the conclusion that it is time to close this public service chapter of my life. It's time to begin opening new chapters and pursuing new opportunities to engage in the important cultural and political battles of our day from outside the arena of the U.S. House of Representatives.... So today, I am announcing my intention to resign my seat in the House."
Clearly, DeLay withdrew from the race after the primary and yet long before any circumstance had arisen which would, hypothetically and prospectively, effect his eligibility for office.
Also, the talk of residency is a misnomer. The Constitutional standard for eligibility for Congress is inhabitancy not residency. DeLay is not proposing to surrender his inhabitance in Texas; certainly no feature of DeLay's career stands out more prominently than his steadfast belief that the laws do not apply to him as they apply to everyone else, but even DeLay must realize that indicted criminals do not enjoy the unilateral right to simply give up their inhabitance in the state where they are under indictment.
Instead of withdrawing before the primary or, alternatively, engaging in a course of action where Delay first divested himself of his Texas inhabitance, and then was declared ineligible, and finally the GOP sought to replace him on the ballot, DeLay couldn't resist the urge to grandstand with an announcement of his withdrawal from the race before he has even begun any of the processes which might have resulted, hypothetically, in his being found ineligible.
In sum, DeLay he is merely seeking to game the Election Code by withdrawing from the race but then pretending that he was prospectively declared ineligible.
Some within the GOP are saying that Delay never "officially" withdrew from the race because, while he announced his withdrawal on national television, he never filled out withdrawal papers. The Texas Supreme Court previously addressed a similar situation in Slagle vs. Hannah where the court held to the following interpretation of the law: "under § 145.036 of the Texas Election Code, the political parties may nominate a replacement candidate following a withdrawal if 'no political party that held primary elections has a nominee for the office sought by the withdrawing candidate as of the time of the withdrawal' {and} the confusion in this case stems from the fact that Aikin never officially withdrew his nomination for the Board." The court went on to find that Aikin had withdrawn for the purposes of deciding whether he should be replaced on the ballot despite the fact that he never officially withdrew his nomination.
Clearly, the courts have previously treated a candidate's effective withdrawal as if it were an official withdrawal for the purposes of the law governing whether the candidate can be replaced on the ballot even when the withdrawing candidate "never officially withdrew his nomination." Again, this is precisely DeLay's situation.
DeLay, as always, expects special treatment. Every facet of his political career demonstrates that he holds himself as above the law. The Texas court system should tell DeLay that he's not above the law that applies to everyone else and neither he nor any politician deserves special treatment under the law.
Will the Texas courts do justice? I cannot predict that outcome, but we should fight for justice in any event because either we prevail or, if the courts are biased to the point where they will not enforce the laws of Texas against a corrupt politician, then that is something we need to know about our judges because they, too, are elected officials who serve at the pleasure of the people.
|