home

Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot

Another loss for Tom DeLay and Republicans....the appeals court has ruled he must stay on the November ballot.

< Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane Hamsher | An Overdue Release From Custody >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 01:12:57 PM EST
    Democrats sued to keep DeLay on the ballot. Keeping him on the ballot gives them the opportunity to make the indicted former House majority leader their symbol for claims that the Republicans are corrupt.
    I would say the corrupt people are those who want deprive the citizens of Texas the right to have two viable candidates. By doing what they have done they have demonstrated they care nothing for democracy, just winning. Nothing new in that, but it greatly reduces the shine from their self applied halo.

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 01:33:28 PM EST
    Delay's dirty trick backfired. HAHAHAHAHA At least he gets to use the campaign money for his legal defense, but does not get to have his cake and eat it too. He gets his just desserts.

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 01:37:29 PM EST
    Rethugs will appeal to the . Supreme Court. Burn that money up.

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#4)
    by roxtar on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 02:23:16 PM EST
    DeLay, in a master stroke of cynicism, ran in the Republican primary for one reason only; to milk the contribution machine so that his defense fund would be bulging with cash. He never intended to run for re-election. Then he made up a story about moving to Virginia so that he would (as if by magic) be ineligible for the ballot. One small flaw in his brilliant plan; he didn't actually move to Virginia! To suggest that Texans have been deprived of two viable candidates is to ignore that DeLay has name recognition out the wazoo, and has the de facto advantage of incumbency in a district that was custom gerrymandered to his personal specifications. He couldn't be more viable if his name was Jesus H. Diebold! And if you're still convinced that the poor widdle Texans are being deprived of two viable candidates, here's a little checklist that might help you in assessing the blame: Ran in the primary for an office he had no intention of seeking: DeLay Sucked campaign dollars away from other republican candidates to bolster his criminal defense fund: DeLay Came up with a cockamamie scheme to resign and render himself ineligible by "moving to Virginia.": DeLay Lied about moving to Virginia: DeLay So naturally, it's someone else's fault, right PPJ? It couldn't be the natural and inevitable result of an exterminator trying to practice election law without a license, could it?

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#5)
    by roy on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 02:27:06 PM EST
    Jim, Are you suggesting that party leaders should be allowed to ignore the results of a primary election if they think the winner isn't viable?

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 02:27:44 PM EST
    I would say the corrupt people are those who want deprive the citizens of Texas the right to have two viable candidates.
    what a laugh. delay gerrymandered TX to deprive voters of choices, called DHS and the FAA illegally to track down tx dems and delay won the primary with 62%, so he is 'viable.' he's a frekin' crook, but that never stopped him from getting elected before. from the ruling:
    ``In situations such as the one before this court, a replacement candidate cannot appear on the ballot if the original candidate merely withdraws,'' Judge Fortunato Benavides wrote for the three-judge panel.


    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 03:53:05 PM EST
    Another loss for Tom DeLay and Republicans...
    In Texas we call this "counting the chickens before the eggs have hatched". DeLay, for all his troubles, is still the man to beat in this race. Larry Sabato predicted that, even facing the prospect of having an unnamed Republican candidate listed on the November ballot, Republicans held an edge in the race. Reinstalling DeLay (who, mind you, won his primary by a more than 2 to 1 vote margin over his nearest rival) in a Republican district (voted for Bush in 2004 by a margin of 64% to 35%) and you likely have a scenario where a candidate facing money laundering charges, who himself moved out of the district to be taken off the ballot, will win the general election.

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 05:36:13 PM EST
    (who, mind you, won his primary by a more than 2 to 1 vote margin over his nearest rival)
    Not too impressive seeing that...
    Republican votes in a district he's represented for 22 years, running against a primary opponent who has never held elective office in his life. National Journal said on Monday that if DeLay didn't get at least 65 percent of the vote, it "would spell major problems in a race against Nick Lampson," DeLay's Democratic opponent in November. Sure enough, DeLay fell short.
    link

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 06:43:18 PM EST
    DeLay, for all his troubles, is still the man to beat in this race.
    Wow, even rethugs think ppj's point is FOS!

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimcee on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 06:47:41 PM EST
    Either way nothing would be funnier than if DeLay won his seat back even though he didn't want it, or at least feigned that last bit. It really wouldn't surprise me if he did. He would be an albatross around the neck of the Republican dominated Senate because of his legal problems but at the same time it would be a Texas rebuke to the Democratic assumption that his seat is thiers. Question: If he wins and resigns does the Texas governor or Legislature get to appoint the next Senator? Texans please let us know! This is ripe for fun, fun, fun!

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#11)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:24:21 PM EST
    PPJ:
    I would say the corrupt people are those who want deprive the citizens of Texas the right to have two viable candidates.
    That would be the Republican voters of Delay's district. The law that kept him on the ballot was on the books before the election, so are you suggesting that it should have been changed after the election for his benefit? It's not like he can plead ignorance, although in your case it might be a good idea. Your accusation that the people who voted for DeLay are corrupt is the sweetest, most ambrosia-like irony I have had all day.

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 09:06:48 PM EST
    et al - My point stands. If the Demos are truly intersted in democracy they wouldn't have filed the lawsuit. But they aren't. You know it. I know it.

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#13)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 11:44:22 PM EST
    Jim, Gimme a break. They filed the lawsuit to counter DeLay's dirty play. And they won. Fair and square. They made his cynical intent and actions matter, forced them to have a justifiably unpleasant consequence for him. He must sleep in the bed he made. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#14)
    by roxtar on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 03:07:07 AM EST
    There was this little get-together in Texas called a primary election. In that election, a group of voters expressed their will by choosing as their candidate a fellow named Tom DeLay. This process is called democracy. In our democracy, you are not entitled to a viable candidate; you are entitled to the candidate who got the most votes in the primary election. If viability was the standard, Democrats could ask for a do-over of the Dukakis debacle. One group (the GOP) tried to thwart the will of the voters, as expressed in the primary election; another (the dems) asked that the law AND the will of the voters be honored. Jim, you can't possibly be as intellectually dishonest as you appear to be. Or could you?

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 08:20:13 AM EST
    National Journal said on Monday that if DeLay didn't get at least 65 percent of the vote, it "would spell major problems in a race against Nick Lampson," DeLay's Democratic opponent in November. Sure enough, DeLay fell short.
    Only National Journal would interpret a a 62% to 30% victory as a "major problem". Rep McKinney of Georgia would love to have the kind of "problem" DeLay has. roxtar - Excellent point. The most votes should win. Democrats always think this way... oh wait. There must be an explanation for this dispatch:
    The Senate late Thursday rejected, 56-42, a bill fusing the cut in estate taxes with a $2.10 increase over three years in the $5.15 minimum wage.
    which is odd considering 56 Senators voted for the bill and yet the 42-strong minority "won". Democracy in action. Or as Jon Stewart would say "Democracy inaction". Should DeLay win in November, then resign, the Gov of Texas at the time (read: Gov Perry) would call for a special election to be held "as soon as practicable after the vacancy occurs".

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 08:36:11 AM EST
    Delay has big legal problems and his campaign $$ is going toward that. There is no way he can win this one and pay his lawyers. Even Texas republicans are not so stupid to vote for a dead man. His only hope is the SC. Not that that will help his bigger problem.

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#17)
    by roxtar on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 09:07:02 AM EST
    roxtar - Excellent point. The most votes should win. Democrats always think this way... oh wait. There must be an explanation for this dispatch: The Senate late Thursday rejected, 56-42, a bill fusing the cut in estate taxes with a $2.10 increase over three years in the $5.15 minimum wage. which is odd considering 56 Senators voted for the bill and yet the 42-strong minority "won". Democracy in action. Or as Jon Stewart would say "Democracy inaction". 60 votes were required under the Senate rules. I've also seen that body referred to as "the Republican controlled Senate." But leave it to a Republican to make the rules and immediately start whining about how unfair and undemocratic the rules are...

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#18)
    by roy on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 10:03:51 AM EST
    Jim,
    et al - My point stands. If the Demos are truly intersted in democracy they wouldn't have filed the lawsuit.
    I love this trick. The "point stands" because you don't bother to address any of the counter-points. Jim: "Horses are made of cheese." Sailor: "A horse is a quadrupedal mammal, cheese is a solid food prepared from the pressed curd of milk." Roy: "Most cheese comes from cows, horses come from other horses." Roxtar: "What the Hell does cheese have to do with it?" Jim: "My point stands."

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#19)
    by Sailor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 10:55:01 AM EST
    which is odd considering 56 Senators voted for the bill and yet the 42-strong minority "won". Democracy in action.
    technically we're a republic, and anyway there is nothing in either definition that makes a simple majority the deciding factor. See 'changing the constitution.'
    In constitutional theory and in historical usages and especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is referred to as a republic. [...] The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom of the individual.


    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#20)
    by txpublicdefender on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 11:32:11 AM EST
    Let's see. The Constitution of the United States of America states that the only qualification to be elected a Representative is that you be an inhabitant of the District on election day. The Texas election laws state that, once an opposing party has selected a candidate, the selected candidate of another party cannot be replaced merely by withdrawing. Rather, he can only be replaced if he is declared ineligible. The Republicans tried to say that because DeLay "moved" to Virginia, he was ineligible, and they should be able to replace him. In fact, since he is eligible as long as he lives in the district on election day, what he is really doing is trying to withdraw, and evade the consequences of the duly enacted Texas election laws. The issue of whether DeLay truly moved to Virginia or not is a red herring. He could have packed up all his belongings, wife, and kids, and moved everything to Virginia, but that wouldn't change the fact that he is still eligible unless he does not live in the District on election day. What both the federal district judge (appointed by a Republican) and the three 5th Circuit Court of Appeals judges (2 appointed by Clinton, one by Bush) said is that the GOP's actions constituted a violation of both the US Constitution's Qualifications Clause (which states the inhabitancy on election day requirement) and Texas's election law prohibiting replacing a candidate who withdraws. It could not be any clearer. The last time I looked, asking the courts to enforce the provisions of the Constitution and a state's duly enacted laws--especially those laws which relate to elections--is caring about Democracy. How does your point stand now, PPJ?

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 03:05:31 PM EST
    txpub - Thank you for that summary. I think it's spot on. The SCOTUS will require DeLay to stay in the race. The people of TX-22 will have the option of electing a Democrat to represent them, or reelecting DeLay. I have my hunches on what they will do. roxtar and sailor - The vote failed cloture. It was a filibuster, not a vote. Media reports that the "Senators defeat minimum wage hike" are obnoxious: the reality is a vote on the minimum wage bill have has been blocked. Vote it up, or vote it down - don't inhibit the democratic process.

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#22)
    by Sailor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 04:44:57 PM EST
    The vote failed cloture.
    Exactly, but I was trying to explain why those rules were set up to combat the tyranny of the majority.
    The reality is a vote on the minimum wage bill have has been blocked.
    No, the vote on the estate tax was blocked. I started to think you actually got the process until you wrote this:
    Vote it up, or vote it down - don't inhibit the democratic process.
    See the above posts about the tyranny of the majority. This is democracy, even in it's whittled down form. And repubs don't excerise 'up & down' votes when they disagree with a bill either. Aside from that, delay, according to all of the judges, is on the ballot. Good, he gets an up or down vote. Unless the supremes find differently, and at this point it's obvious some of them will ignore the law and just do whatever is good for republicans. Roy, excellent post, and self defacing too;-)

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 09:02:13 PM EST
    You have misapplied the concept of the "tyranny of the majority". Procedural filibusters are violative of democracy, regardless of what party employs it.

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 09:11:55 PM EST
    You have misapplied the concept of the "tyranny of the majority"
    Realllllllly!? Got links?

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimcee on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 09:35:56 PM EST
    Someone please explain that if Delay wins does he get to go back to congress or does the governor or legislature choose the interim representitive? And could they appoint Delay if they were so politically inclined? Someone has to know how Texas politics work, so please inform us simply if you will.

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 09:50:43 PM EST
    JS Mill, On Liberty, online here.

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 09:55:32 PM EST
    jimcee: My reading is that should DeLay win, he's won. I think the conventional wisdom is that he would then resign, prompting the Governor to call a special election to fill the vacancy. Texas Election Code covering the issue, begins here and continues in subsequent sections. Enjoy.

    Re: Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot (none / 0) (#28)
    by roxtar on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 03:43:00 AM EST
    I can't help suspecting that if Delay wins, he'll take a victory lap down K Street with a wheelbarrow before tendering his resignation.....