Judge Rules Tom Delay to Remain on Texas Ballot
The opinion by Federal Judge Sparks to keep Tom Delay on the Ballot in Texas is dead wrong, for the very reason the feds stayed out of the 2002 Senate race in New Jersey; this is a state issue, not a federal issue. Tom Delay has moved to Virginia several months before the mid-term election allowing State Republican Chairwoman Tina Benkiser to name a replacement. Delay is no longer a Texas citizen, he can’t run for office.
Why is it that the Democrats can do this but Republicans can’t? In the 2002 mid-term election Bob Torricelli removed himself for the running for the Senate becoming involved in a scandal a mere 43 days, I think, before the election. In his place the Democrats convinced Frank Lautenberg to come out of retirement to hold on to the seat. And Torricelli did not even leave the state! The courts rightly decided the issue of who runs and is qualified to hold office should be decided by the states with the caveat they meet the Federal age and residency requirements. The Constitution sets the age at twenty-five and leaves the residency requirement up to the individual states. And here comes this judge who makes his decision on what might happen.
During a June 21 hearing, Judge Sparks expressed concern that under the GOP interpretation, a party might “manipulate” the rules for its own benefit by replacing nominees it fears might lose.
The U.S. Constitution establishes that a candidate for Congress is eligible if he or she is 25 years old, a citizen and an inhabitant of the state when elected.
In his opinion, Judge Sparks said there was no assurance that Mr. DeLay would not return to Texas and be an inhabitant on Election Day.
“There is no evidence that DeLay will still be living in Virginia tomorrow, let alone on Nov. 7, 2006, the only day that matters” under the Constitution, the judge said. (emphasis added by TRS)
Judge Sparks was grasping at straws when he made his decision. And judge worth his salt will not make a decision on what might happen. The decision is ludicrous. Using his decision, no one in the state of Texas should have a voter registration card, because we might leave the state before the election.
Outside the Beltway notes something that I had forgotten, according to New Jersey law, Torricelli name should not have been taken off the ballot.
Republicans might note with some chagrin, and perhaps a touch of irony, that New Jersey Democrats successfully replaced Robert Torricelli, similarly affected with concerns about his character, with Frank Lautenberg less than a month before the 2002 election and in rather flagrant violation of state law requiring such a change be made at least 48 days in place of an election. That action was affirmed by the NJ Supreme Court, which argued that the law unfairly deprived residents of a competitive election, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene.
Amazing. When judges interfere in areas where they have no compelling interest, we are all in trouble.
Posts
