MyDD :: Time: DeLay "Planning an Aggressive Campaign"

Time: DeLay "Planning an Aggressive Campaign"

by Jonathan Singer, Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 01:25:54 PM EST

The wheels turn pretty quickly in Washington. Over in Breaking Blue, howardpark noted that Tom DeLay recently began to publicly discuss the possibility that he would run again for the US House in TX-22 as a result of a ruling by a federal judge that the Republican Party could not legally replace him on the ballot this November. Now, Time magazine's duo of Mike Allen and Hilary Hylton report that DeLay is moving away from the speculation phase and into the planning phase.

Could Tom DeLay be headed back to the House?

A source close to the ex-Congressman tells TIME that DeLay is planning an aggressive campaign to retake the House seat he quit in June if an appeals court lets stand a ruling by a federal judge last week that his name must stay on November's ballot--even though he has moved to Virginia.

"If it isn't overturned, Katy bar the door!" says a G.O.P. official. "Guess he'll have to fire up the engines on the campaign and let 'er rip."

I have always believed that this race would be extremely competitive even with Republicans having the opportunity to replace DeLay with another candidate. Former Democratic Congressman Nick Lampson is just too strong and too well-funded of a candidate for the Republicans to walk to victory this fall. But now, given the increasing likelihood that Tom DeLay will be the Republican candidate for the United States House in Texas' 22 congressional district, there is no question in my mind that the Democrats can, and perhaps should, win this race.

Immediately prior to DeLay's announcement that he would resign his office and not seek another term, the Cook Political Report (.pdf) rated this race a "toss-up", one of the Democrats' 10 best pick-up opportunities in the House. Following that announcement, Cook moved the race into the "likely Republican" column, a switch that will no doubt have to be reversed should DeLay indeed run. Perhaps, with the amount of campaign cash DeLay has spent on his legal defense fund -- money he cannot raise again from his same base of donors because of federal election law -- this race should actually be ranked "leans Democrat" if DeLay does indeed run.

However one delineates the race -- and even however the race turns out this fall -- should Tom DeLay be on the ballot in Texas this fall, the dynamics of a number of congressional races around the country will no doubt change. Particularly in districts in which the Republican nominee was close to and shilled for DeLay, the possibility of DeLay re-entering the Congress immediately brings their ties to him back into play.

Make no mistake, the possibility that Tom DeLay will actually end up running for reelection this fall is terrible news for the Republican Party, both inside and outside of Texas.

Tags: Tom DeLay, TX-22, House 2006, Nick Lampson, Texas Democratic Party v Benisker, Schaeffer v Townsend, Texas Election Code (all tags)

Permalink :: 25 Comments :: Post a Comment

What's the smart play here for the GOP? (none / 0)

Let's assume the judge's ruling is upheld by the Circuit Court.

What can the GOP do?

They can let Lampson run and not campaign against him. Or they can let (as if they've a choice in the matter!) DeLay campaign his socks off.

Is there another option?

If DeLay will play ball, the first is certainly a viable option: DeLay says he's concentrating on preparing my defense against the unfounded charges brought against me and all that jazz.

The Dems will then no doubt crow that DeLay is crouching in his funk hole like Saddam - and all that jazz.

If DeLay campaigns, then what? A face from the GOP underbelly gets onto TV screens. The Dems get a Grade A target.

On the other hand, perhaps the Dems get distracted. DeLay has off-the-chart salience for the netroots and other diehards, but (I'm pretty sure) bores the pants off the voters that the Dems need to take control of Congress.

They want to hear about healthcare and education, and all the Dems do is scream culture of corruption.

That way, the GOP come over as grownups, in charge, taking care of business - the Dems as strident, Free Mumia, kids.

On balance, I agree that a DeLay run should be good for the Dems.

But it will feed lefty hubris like few other things.

by skeptic06 on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 01:50:43 PM EST

hang on (none / 0)

Now hang on a minute, and correct me where I'm wrong.

The judge has ruled that Delay actually withdrew from the race, and thus cannot be replaced on the ballot. But he said that Delay withdrew from the ballot. So how can he un-withdraw?

by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 02:20:03 PM EST

Not quite right... (none / 0)

According to the judgement, the RPT purported to replace DeLay on the ballot on the ground of ineligibility.

The judge said DeLay was not ineligible, so the purported RPT certification of DeLay as ineligible was void.

DeLay can still withdraw from the race. But - and this is clearly what was driving the whole charade - if he does so without being ineligible to run in TX-22, the RPT cannot replace him. (This is the rule in §145.036(b) of the TX Election Code, apparently - p 16 of judgement.)

So - if the judge is upheld, the RPT's choice is between running DeLay or letting Lampson run unopposed.

by skeptic06 on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 03:29:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not quite right... (none / 0)

OK, but how can that be correct? He legally changed his state of residence, so doesn't he HAVE to be ineligible?

If I'm reading you correctly, the judgment either just declared that living outside of Texas does NOT make someone ineligible to run for Congress in Texas, or that legally changing your state of residency does not count when determining residency. In which case, the judge is nuts, even if it might be beneficial to us.

by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 03:39:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not quite right... (none / 0)

Now you've got me reading the Election Code...

We're looking at Chapter 145, Withdrawal, Death and Ineligibility of Candidates.

The judge directs us (p8) to §145.003:

(a) Except for a judicial action in which a candidate's eligibility is in issue, a candidate may be declared ineligible only as provided by this section.
(b) A candidate in the general election for state and county officers may be declared ineligible before the 30th day preceding election day by...

That's where I have my first problem: because, clearly, a US Rep is not a state or county officer!

(The definitions for the Code are in §1.004, and give no special meaning to these expressions.)

But - with that enormous proviso - how it's argued in the judgement is (as I read it) this:

The RPT can only replace DeLay on the ballot if they file a (valid!) certificate that he is ineligible.
The only possible ground on which he could be ineligible is through not being an inhabitant of TX, within the meaning of the US Constitution.
As a matter of construction, the Constitutional rule only applies on the day of the general election, neither before nor after.
The RPT cannot prove, on the basis of current facts (any facts, not just the pitiful selection they produced!) what DeLay's status will be in November.
The certificate of DeLay's ineligibility given by the RPT was therefore void.
Under §145.035 of the Code, if DeLay withdraws without having validly been certified ineligible, the RPT could not replace him on the ballot.

by skeptic06 on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 04:40:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not quite right... (none / 0)

A candidate can only be declared ineligible before the 30th day preceding election day. But you can't prove your place of inhabitance until election day. So then...it's impossible?

Texas is nuts.

by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 05:11:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not quite right... (none / 0)

The Constitution, and only the Constitution (Art I, sec 2, cl 2) covers eligibility for the office; state law only governs whether a nominee can be replaced on the ballot.

The only thing that determines whether you're eligible for Congress is whether you have the proper age (25) and citizenship (7 years), and whether you are an inhabitant of the district upon being elected. Because no one can know now where DeLay will be living in November, he can't be ineligible for the office yet under the Constitution, and therefore the state law for replacing an "ineligible" candidate doesn't apply. Read the opinion.

by Adam B on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 05:47:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not quite right... (none / 0)

So essentially, the ruling is that Texas has no applicable law on the subject of ineligibility because only the Constitution has jurisdiction. So...ineligibility should never have even been considered as possible?

by Lucas O'Connor on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 12:26:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not quite right... (none / 0)

It should have been considered under federal law, and the question was whether it was ever possible to disqualify an age-eligible, citizenship-eligible candidate prior to Election Day on the basis of express intent regarding residency.

by Adam B on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 09:09:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not quite right... (none / 0)

That wording of the Constitution has always seemed a bit weird to me. I wonder if it comes from the English tradition that the winner of a parliamentary election must appear in person election night at the vote tally of the constituency he is to represent.

Race to 270: Tracking presidential elections since 2004.

by bschak on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 10:27:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not quite right... (none / 0)

The interplay between state law and the US Constitution is a tad awkward, I agree!

Seems to me the judge is saying that the qualifications for US Rep are exclusively those provided in the Constitution. But other aspects of US House elections are within the power of the states to legislate on. Such as how (if at all) a guy properly on the ballot can get of it.

(As well as filing deadlines, and the like.)

by skeptic06 on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 06:02:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not quite right... (none / 0)

Correct. And as I noted above, because the Constitution measures residency on Election Day, it's impossible to state today that DeLay won't be living anywhere in the state in November.

by Adam B on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 10:21:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Delay (none / 0)

He doesn't have to un-withdraw. If the ruling stands (and that is not likely) then his name remains on the ballot and people can vote for him if they wish to do so. And a lot of Republicans would be delighted to do that no matter how serious his crimes may be. So if he decides to campaign he might even win. But he would still be a huge problem for the GOP since he would contstantly remind people around the country of the seriousness of the corruption issue. But I think it is very likely the court of appeals (which is one of the most Republican courts in the country) will do whatever they think is best for the Republican party (and the law be damned), and that would probably be to allow the Republican bosses to replace him with a Delay clone.

by herodotus on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 02:36:15 PM EST

Re: DeLay "Planning an Aggressive Campaign (3.00 / 1)

If he runs, this is bad. You have to understand that this is an extremely right-wing, fanatic christian district. A lot of the voters are really out of touch with reality, and live in a ChristoFascist bubble. They prosecute kids for wearing different color socks to school! (Could be gang related.) They REALLY want prayer back in school, and the ACLU permanently deballed. Etc. (Source: numerous articles over the years in the Houston Press.)

Nick Lampson was a very effective congressman, very connected to his constituency, very service-oriented. He'd be great to have back in the House. (Source: my working with the Lampson campaign.) But, he's a daemoncrat, and he'll vote for those godless liberals to take over Congress and destroy all the progress Republicans have made over the last few years (Hey, they think that way.)

DeLay could come in with his patented fire and brimstone, Baptist hell-raiser preacher campaign style, attack and attack those git-damn liberals out to destroy our god-fearing, christian, conservative way of life, and raise the fanaticism level in the district to new heights. Which many people would like to do just to get back at those git-damn liberals for all the defeats they've handed the local folks on prayer in schools, integration, abortion, etc., etc. And there'll be plenty of volunteer support and local doners, operating the same sort of way progressives are operating.

It'll be a barn-burner of a fight. Take nothing for granted.

Abigail, I'm sure if there is something out there looking down on us from somewhere else in the Universe, they're wise enough to stay away from us. --Grissom

by traveler on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 02:41:30 PM EST

Re: DeLay "Planning an Aggressive Campaign (none / 0)

SAYS WHO!?!?! We lean GOP, but we're not crazy, the Sugar landers may be but they are 30% of the district MAX

~District Resident

by Trowaman on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 06:40:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DeLay "Planning an Aggressive Campaign (none / 0)

As I cite in the post, the Houston Press says so, and has shown it over and over, over the years. Please read the entire post (including material in prens). And the Sugar Landers are not the only far-right ChristoFascists in the district (again, review back issues of the HP).

For the approximately 40% of district voters who are not wingnuts, my apologies for not being more discriminating in my initial post. There are plenty of sane people in the district, which is why Nick has a chance.

Abigail, I'm sure if there is something out there looking down on us from somewhere else in the Universe, they're wise enough to stay away from us. --Grissom

by traveler on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 06:53:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That judicial decision... (none / 0)

...of Federal District Judge Sam Sparks (in Austin) is here (PDF), courtesy of the good people at Election Law Blog.

I read it as pretty a much a non-starter for the GOP. (It's TDP but RPT apparently - who knew?)

In order to justify its having ruled DeLay to be ineligible to be on the ballot in November, the RPT had to show that DeLay was not an inhabitant of TX, according to the Constitution.

The judge said it was plain as a pikestaff that the Constitutional requirement only needed to be satisfied on Election Day itself.

Moving into his condo in VA (long-term DC base) leaving Mrs D back at the family home in TX and getting a VA driving license and registering to vote there didn't come within a country mile of showing non-inhabitantship in TX. Certainly not projected four months into the future!

And there's caselaw supporting this.

I think even a biased Circuit Court would find it hard to overrule Sparky and make it look good.

Of course, they might not be too bothered about that...

by skeptic06 on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 03:06:38 PM EST

Re: That judicial decision... (none / 0)

so does that mean I could run in the district as long as I moved there by election day?

by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 03:52:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That judicial decision... (none / 0)

No - according to §141.001, for a write-in candidate, there's a 12 month residency requirement counting back from general election day.

(For party candidates, the requirement counts back from filing deadline day.)

by skeptic06 on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 04:51:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That judicial decision... (none / 0)

but he doesn't have residency counting back 12 months, unless you mean at some point within 12 months counting backwards.

by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 05:12:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That judicial decision... (none / 0)

As I read this, the last day of filing for the GOP primary would have been January 2 2006.

I think you'd count back from that date.

by skeptic06 on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 06:13:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That judicial decision... (none / 0)

I don't believe that provision can supersede the Constitution.

by Adam B on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 05:48:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That judicial decision... (none / 0)

It doesn't.

The Constitution lays down the qualifications for those running for House rep; other conditions (eg filing deadlines) are within the states' power to stipulate.

by skeptic06 on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 06:17:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That judicial decision... (none / 0)

I've looked at the judgement again - and I've changed my mind!

The judgement refers to the 9th Circuit case of Schaeffer which is exactly on point.

In that case, CA required a candidate for a US House seat to register to vote in CA before he could file as a candidate.

A NV resident wanted to run in the special election to fill the seat left by the death of Sonny Bono. He didn't want to take up CA residency unless he won.

The 9th Circuit said the registration requirement was unconstitutional.

The opinion has cites to cover other areas which the states may regulate (eg minimum show of support by petition signatures) - residency requirements, however, are verboten.

(We still have the question I raised in one of the earlier comments here that the certification of ineligibility is stated to apply only to state and county officials - which I can't see including a US House rep. But - sometime an actual expert will step in here, I'm hoping!)

by skeptic06 on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 07:42:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What about the DeLay Criminal Trial? (none / 0)

Did I miss something, or isn't Tom DeLay still under indictment?

by ROGNM on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 03:13:31 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.