|
is more that you have shown the Texas Democratic Party by calling their effort to make DeLay and the GOP obey Texas law a "sleazy" effort.
The focus of the effort isn't to keep DeLay on the ballot. The focus is to require that DeLay withdraw from the ballot in compliance with the Texas Election Code or stay on the ballot and to stop the GOP from violating the Texas Elections Code by seeking to replace their doomed candidate on the ballot when it is too late under the Texas Elections Code to replace a withdrawing candidate with the party's own hand-picked replacement stooge.
In short, the Texas Democratic Party just wants DeLay and the GOP to follow Texas law which holds that a party cannot replace a candidate on the ballot when the candidate has withdrawn from the race after the parties' primaries (unless the candidate is withdrawing due to ill health or to accept another political candidacy appointment).
Instead of withdrawing before the primaries (which would have drawn a different candidate field in both parties primaries), DeLay tried to lie behind the log so he could hand pick his successor on the Republican ballot instead of allowing the voters to make that decision. Texas law rightly forbids this practice. That's illegal in Texas (and in most other states, too).
The distinction whether DeLay is "declared ineligible" or has "withdrawn" determines whether the GOP can replace DeLay's name on the ballot or not.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.
As you may see, the people who were most directly harmed by DeLay's scheme are (1) the people of Texas (first and foremost) who have the right to select the nominee during the primary and who enjoy the right that the GOP is trying to steal from them by hand-picking a replacement stooge, (2) the Republicans who would have run in the primary if DeLay was not trying to scam this election be waiting until after the primary to withdraw and the Republican candidates who ran and lost to an incumbent who has now withdrawn after the primary, and (3) the Texas Democratic Party and those Democrats who might have run if DeLay had not tried to scam the election because they would have run for an open seat but not against a sitting incumbent.
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.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
