Dead man running: DeLay remains on the ballot
By Sean Aqui | Related entries in Breaking News, Elections, General Politics, Law, Partisan HacksI wrote earlier — and disapprovingly — about a suit filed by Texas Democrats to keep Tom DeLay’s name on the ballot.
Well, get this: they won.
The Texas Republican Party must keep Tom DeLay’s name on the November election ballot, even though the former congressman has dropped his re-election bid, a federal judge ruled Thursday.
DeLay, the former House majority leader who resigned from office June 9, won the Republican primary for his district in March but decided against re-election a month later.
If that decision stands — and a Republican appeal is almost a certainty — it would all-but-guarantee that Democrat Nick Lampson will take over DeLay’s seat come November.
The reason DeLay resigned when he did was so he could help handpick his successor — without having to go through that messy piece of intraparty democracy known as a primary. So on one level the Dems have merely foiled one last shady maneuver by the Hammer.
But the extended legal dispute also keeps the GOP from naming a replacement, thus delaying their ability to start campaigning and raising funds. So it’s a strategic move by the Dems as well.
One could argue that this is simply DeLay reaping what he sowed: an emphasis on hardball partisanship, regardless of the cost to the nation. It might be considered poetic justice for him to be beaten into the ground with his own favorite weapon.
But that’s what everyone disliked about DeLay, and Democrats do themselves no favors by emulating him. They need to rise above it and show that they really are different, and that they really do repudiate DeLay and everything he stands for.
So I stand by my earlier position: The Dems should drop the suit and let the Reps name whatever replacement they want. Democracy is not served when a contest is essentially reduced to a one-party race because of legal technicalities. Sugarland voters deserve a choice in November.
This entry was posted on Thursday, July 6th, 2006 and is filed under Breaking News, Elections, General Politics, Law, Partisan Hacks. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
In principle, I agree with you. However, when you are getting the crap beat out of you by people who don’t play by the same rules that you do, then taking the moral highground can become a losing position.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Now the disenfranchised may finally reap some benefits of Delays and the republicans crooked politics.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
“Sugarland voters deserve a choice in November.” They _are_ getting the choice! they choose a crook in the primary and are geting exactly what they (and he) deserves. If Delay chooses his replacement on the ballet, what choise is that! none!
July 6th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Pam: And in principle, I agree with you. :) Except in this case I think DeLay’s approach is coming home to roost. The Dems can win without playing DeLay’s game. And respect for democracy demands it.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
I live in the district. I think everyone will be suprised when Delay gets relected. Dems should have let him fade out whne they had the chance.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
congratulations on the google link. you’ve got the top link on this item at the moment. never visited your blog before. as a liberal I’d like to compliment you on the reasonability of your argument and the civilized way in which it’s expressed. I appreciate it. So much rancor out there, on both sides. It is dispiriting.
I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. The Sugarland voters do have a fair choice. It’s not the optimum one for the Republican party, but it reflects the reality of the times. By design, the GOP has created a ‘parliamentary’ type system where a narrow majority rules everything, and decided everything along strict party lines. No bipartisanship, no compromise. Many decisions have been taken, and the consequences of those decisions will impact this nation for years to come. The voters have a right to express their opinion with their vote, not only of the man, but the decisions and the philosophy of governing. The nation needs and deserves to have a public discussion about this, and a Lampson v. Delay election provides a venue.
As for the man personally, he deserves whatever comeuppance he gets, for his influence has been pernicious and damaging to the process.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
It is important to consistently emphasize that we are a Republic based on a system of laws created, enforced and evaluated for Constitutional merit by a governmetal system of checks and balances. I think the ruling indicates adequately just that. Parties that wish to choose a candidate for election must do so WITHIN the election system’s legal construct. So often people are willing to point out that we are a country based on “Rule Of Law” when it is to their advantage, then ask that the rules be bent when it would be to their advantage. This attempt to finagle around election law should not be allowed. Future attempts to pervet, subvert, evade and erode election law will only be emboldened by a wishy-washy reasoning for why the system should be abandoned in this case.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Well, they can always petition in an Independent if they want someone on the ballot.
Delay wanted to have his primary and yet not run (as you said, so he can control the choice), that’s what he got.
Win the primary, your name is on the ballot. That’s pretty basic election law.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
I agree that Delay outsmarted himself on this one and probably deserves the outcome. Having said that, it’s pretty amusing to watch democrats argue that the repugs are up to their old tricks again, when they pulled the exact (probably more flagrant) maneuver in New Jersey several years ago with Lautenburg. I know it’s a different state, with different electoral laws, but still…
July 6th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
How sad that the only way the Democrats can win is by having on opponent. Everyone seems to forget why the redistricting happened when it did. It was because the Democrats delayed the redistricting when the cencus came out, so Republicans had to force the issue. Democrats only win when they deceive or do not play fair. And our left-leaning media never seems to call them on it.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Delay have a choice of his succesor? Are you kidding? Delay has chosen to play a game of politics instead of allowing a fundamental primary. Therefore, Delay and the rest of the Republican party must deal with the consiquence. It’s funny how the system works huh?
July 6th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Oh whatever.
The GOP will not decide who is on the ticket if DeLay is allowed to remove his name. A small collection of GOP political operatives will decide.
Tom DeLay spit in the face of the primary process when he did what he did. And the Republicans are too dumb to recognize it.
The Republican Party has become the party of the Royalists. “Leave us alone and let us govern, and stop acting like we’re doing it for you.”
He shouldn’t have left his name in the primary to begin with. And shame on the GOP at large for failing to replace him at that time. Now, the Democrats are just holding him to the rules. NOT CHANGING THE RULES AFTER THE FACT, which is what DeLay is notorious for (Texas redistricting, holding house votes open, the list goes on and on).
Sorry, but this isn’t political punditry. This is noise-machinery. Mr. Aqui is not worth the effort of reading his opinion.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
And, as usual, if the situation were reversed, the democrats would be having hissyfits if it were happening to them. They were all so indignant when Lautenberg (NJ) was involved. And where was the moral highground for the scandal of William Jefferson (LA) or William Jefferson Clinton, for that matter. Of course, without the media to assist, these ’scandals’ never see the same light of day.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
“Sugar Land” - two words.
My parents live and vote there (although my mother, for one, cannot stand Tom DeLay).
Their neighbors actually used to use Mr. DeLay as their pest control man back in the early 80’s. I don’t think they support him politically but they did say that he made a pretty good bug man!
July 6th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Tom DeLay is dead? Funny I missed that headline elsewhere. If he isn’t *really* dead, but only politically dead, then his name should stay on the ballot. We have laws for a reason: so power-mad individuals cannot run roughshod over the populace forever. Eventually it catches up with them. Enjoy the humble pie, Hammer.
Oh and Renee, I have a fresh pot of joe brewing, you should wake up, stop watching FOX, and come on over and give it a good strong whiff. I think it’s sad that Delay and the TX Republicans had to perpetrate such terrible gerrymandering to preserve their TX majority that even our current conservative Supreme Court had to find it illegal.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
If Delay (and/or his plan) violated or tried to manipulate the law, the Dems had every right to bring suit. Going to court to have laws and rights enforced is not playing tit for tat political rancor. It’s called standing up to a bully.
If the people in Texas don’t have a choice, they may place the blame on the man who intentionally set this situation up, not the people who went into court to say, “Excuse me, but this is BS.”
Also, I concur with the thoughts above that if Dems take the “high road,” we will get stomped on. We can then continue to take the high road and be proud of ourselves for that, but I suspect Repubs will use that against us too - calling us whiny wimps or something along those lines. Until Repubs cease to be aggressors and bullies, constantly on the offensive, pushing the limits - I don’t see how Dems can cease to defend themselves and try to hold the lines. As I see it, Dems are constantly having to fight just to keep the rights and freedoms we have in this country. We get screwed because we are always playing by Repub’s rules in Repub’s games. We let them control the debate, and all we are left with is to defend ourselves. At the very least, we need to continue to defend ourselves. It would be nice if we could start taking back some power as well.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
BTW - The redistricting thing is a whole other story. Back in law school, we read cases (OLD cases) where Repubs were trying to do the same thing. One of the cases actually included a diagram to illustrate the proposed redistricting. It looked like a pile of spaghetti, and it was obvious who they were trying to exclude. In class, we all laughed about how completely obvious the ploy was, but here we are today . . . .
July 6th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
[...] [...]
July 6th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
“Legal” and “right” don’t always been the same thing. The Dems have the law on their side; all I’m suggesting is that they shouldn’t pull the trigger. Because respecting the spirit of democracy is more important than whatever fleeting tactical advantage this may give them in this one race.
The Dems are using a legal technicality to avoid facing serious competition in November. Similar GOP transgressions may make that tactic understandable, but it doesn’t make it right.
Besides, there is nothing sacrosanct about a primary. It’s essentially an internal party function. Nothing compels the GOP to select its candidates using a primary; they could simply appoint them, or draw straws, or annoint the winner of a hot-dog-eating contest.
Ballot rules exist to ensure that candidates are a) qualified and b) serious, and that they c) file in a timely manner to ensure the smooth operation of the electoral process, adequate time to print ballots, etc.
Laudable goals all, but they do not overshadow the reason we have elections in the first place. As a matter of principle, a person ought to be able to declare their candidacy on election day. Practical concerns prevent that, but the principle remains. Here in early July, there is no practical obstacle to removing DeLay and substituting another candidate for the November race. So we should allow it.
Because our loyalty to democracy should be deeper than our loyalty to party, or our reverence for electoral bureaucracy.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Tom DeLay hoisted himself and his party on this petard. They need to own it, learn from it, and live with the consequences.
So the Dems should take the “high road”? “Respect the spirit of democracy”? Like Delay and his party did in the primary? A cynical move on their part, knowing full well that he was in legal trouble. He won the primary. I have to wonder if the retirement was known beforehand. I think it was. And if this is correct…to hades with them.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
I disagree with the article’s assessment suggesting that the democratic process be answered by allowing Delay to pick a republican opponent. I would also disagree with even allowing any other republican opponent to be in place of Delay.
The reason? The primaries are over. Who instituted them? Why? Is there really a benefit to the people to narrow all the choices to one person from each of the two parties? No. So screw them. THe primaries are what is robbing this democratic process. In a perfect world, each candidate running for that seat should be on the ballot..but since this primary crap is in place (equally useless and corruptable is the electoral college), then screw the republican camp..and dem camp when this happens to them.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
I agree with you, Sean, that the Dems shouldn’t have pulled the trigger, but I can’t get too mad about it. The Republicans, if the situation were reversed, would likely have done the same thing. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the election, though.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
The same thing happened in NJ a few years back - Torricelli (D) dropped out well after the primary, when it became obvious he was going to get his but handed into him. A judge let Corzine (D) take his place, and Corzine (D) whipped Forrester (R).
So when you think about whether Delay should be given an out, consider whether you’d make the same choice if the D’s and R’s were switched.
Personally, I think that Torricelli should have stayed on the ballot, and Delay should stay on the ballot. If the people want someone else, they need to find a way to do it that fits in with the rules - perhaps by writing someone else in.
Of course, if we got rid of primaries, and had instant runoff instead, none of this would be relevant.
July 6th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Looking through the comments, I see that other people referenced the case, and my memory failed me - Lautenberg took over for Torricelli, not Corzine.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Well, come mid-November either
- The Democrats will be celebrated for their cleverness in managing to win, in what was designed to be a safe Republican seat, or
- The Republicans will be gloating about how the Democrats managed to shoot themselves in the foot.
Until then, who has actually done the clever thing is strictly a matter of perspective . . . and preconceived ideas.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Tom, you’re right, several of us mentioned the Torricelli/Lautenburg case, which was exactly the same stunt the dems are now complaining about, but as usual they’re ignoring that inconvenient datum.
Can you imagine the outcry if republicans dared to suggest that a race be held without a democrat opponent? The cries of disenfranchisement and electoral fraud would sound across the nation.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
I agree that the Dems are giving him a taste of his own “hardball.” What a skunk, I won’t miss DeLay one bit. The Texas GOP deserves this.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Emilio:
The Dems aren’t suggesting that the election be held without a republican opponent. They are suggesting that the republican who won the primary, as election law clearly dictates, should be the candidate in the general election.
How some people miss this simple concept is beyond me.
July 7th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Blue,
It’s disingenuous to say that what the democrats are suggesting is that the person who won the primary be the candidate in the election, when they very well know that that candidate has retired/resigned. It would be darkly humorous for democrats to force Delay out of retirement and then have him beat them in the election. If this country wasn’t as ridiculously polarized as it is, we would all agree that the best thing for the country would be for Delay to go away permanently and just put someone else on the ticket, but that doesn’t seem possible, does it?
What prompted me to post originally, however, was the hypocrisy of democrats pulling the exact same stunt in New Jersey (substituting the candidate that won the primary, yada, yada…) and then, without the slightest trace of embarassment, complaining when republicans tried to do the same in Texas. It was actually worse in New Jersey as in that case it was a coldly calculated maneuver by a sleazebag who was clearly losing the election, which is not the case with Delay (except for the sleazebag part, of course).
July 7th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Ignoring for the time being the tripe posted above about the “left leaning media,” this is purely a Texas election law matter. New Jersey doesn’t count. Florida doesn’t count. Redistricting shenanigans don’t count.
Dale Gribble DeLay manipulated the law any way he could for over 20 years. He fathered the political system now being used to try to end-run any successor he may have chosen. The problem is not whether the dems are acting as he acted-the problem is the law itself. As Dale did, so we can expect those who have to play on Dale’s playground to do. Remodel the playground.