DeLay WITHDRAWS
Burnt Orange here.
I think this means DeLay will cop a plea bargain, and probably take some guilty pleas but avoid jail time.
I think this means DeLay will cop a plea bargain, and probably take some guilty pleas but avoid jail time.
posted by Right Of Texas @ 9:43 PM
16 Comments:
At 4:11 PM,
Greg in TX22 said…
Hey! You once told me I was too hard on DeLay. Now you think he'll plead to a crime. Did your position change simply because DeLay won't seek reelection anymore?
Keep the light on for me. I'll visit from time to time.
At 4:20 PM,
Anonymous said…
The question whether we can fill the gap on the ballot created by DeLay's withdrawal is unclear. Under Texas election law, we can replace DeLay's name owith another candidate only if (1) DeLay withdrew because of a catastrophic illness (inapplicable), (2) the Dems did not hold a primary election and choose a nominee for the DeLay's office (inapplicable); or (3) DeLay has been elected, appointed, or nominated to fill a vacancy in another elective office (inapplicable).
DeLay is trying to contend that he is not "withdrawing" from the race, but that is not legally sound since he announced that he was withdrawing from the race before moving out of the state with the express intention of being declared "ineligible" in a (doomed?) attempt to evade the express statutory limitations on when we can replace a withdrawing candidate on the ballot.
At 4:40 PM,
Anonymous said…
Your point is well taken anonymous
This is very fishy of Congressman DeLay
At 7:17 AM,
Greg in TX22 said…
The anonymous posters do not havea an accurate understanding of the law. DeLay may not withdraw from the race by simply appearing on TV and saying, "I withdraw." There is a formal process:
==
§ 145.033. AUTHORITY WITH WHOM WITHDRAWAL REQUEST
FILED. A candidate must file a withdrawal request with:
(1) the secretary of state, for a statewide or district office; or
(2) the authority responsible for having the official ballot prepared, for a county or precinct office.
==
Unless DeLay follows those procedures, he has not legally withdrawn from the race. Don't expect DeLay to withdraw. Expect him to move to Virginia and become ineligible.
At 7:53 AM,
Anonymous said…
greg:
I know both the process of how a candidate properly withdraws from a race and the process by which a candidate can be declared ineligible for a race. What I'm saying is that the Texas Election Code was expressly drafted to prevent the situation where an incumbent can hold an office through the primary and then voluntarily leave the office after the primary so his (or the party's) hand-picked candidate can succeed him. Read up on the legislative history of the Texas Election Code -- that's clearly the purpose of the restrictions.
With that understanding, it is clear that DeLay is withdrawing and his method of withdrawing by changing his residence and then seeking a declaration that he is ineligible is so blatant an attempt to evade the clear (and sensible, in my view) restrictions against an incumbent sitting through the primary before withdrawing that it will not stand legal scrutiny.
Assume for a moment that DeLay's misinterpretation of the Texas Election Code were to stand. Imagine the same scenario played out in any one of the dozen Texas districts where there is a Democrat incumbent who is only holding onto his seat due to the power of incumbency in a district that is increasingly voting Republican in national and other local elections. DeLay's misinterpretation of the Texas Election Code would allow the incumbent Democrat to (1) scare off the best Republican challengers (who know the incumbent cannot be beat) and (2) beat any Democratic challenger in the primary and (3) then move out of state to allow the powerful incumbent or other Democratic Party officials to hand-pick the incumbent's successor. DeLay's move-to-Virginia scheme is identical to this plan, and it's specifically what the Texas Election Code was drafted to defeat.
Not only will DeLay's scheme fail; it SHOULD fail.
At 10:34 AM,
Greg in TX22 said…
Anonymous,
The law is clear. A candidate must file a withdrawal request to withdraw. Smart money says that DeLay never makes that request.
At 10:36 AM,
Greg in TX22 said…
Anonymous,
According to your interpretation section 145.003 means nothing. According to you, a candidate may withdraw without doing what 145.003 says he "must" do.
At 12:57 PM,
Anonymous said…
greg:
You are right that the law is clear, but you are not right about which laws are clear. The law is quite clear that you can't just bully your way around the Texas Election Code prohibitions against swapping names on a ballot after the primary has been conducted. Read the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Slagle vs. Hannah and the Dallas Court's decision in In re Hamlin.
I do not think section 145.003 of the Election Code means nothing. It is you who thinks section 145.036 means nothing. If a candidate could get around the limitations on replacing a name on a ballot as easily as you suggest, there would be no means of enforcing section 145.036 and the legislative history of that section indicates it was specifically created to address exactly the sort of situation created by DeLay's withdrawal. You are focusing on whether DeLay has successfully withdrawn (a law that is construed leniently) and I am talking about whether another name can be placed on the ballot (a law that is construed strictly).
At 1:58 PM,
Greg in TX22 said…
Anonymous,
You are entirely misinterpreting section 145.036. The limitations you refer to in 145.036(b) explicitly apply "following a withdrawal". DeLay won't withdraw under the provisions of 145.033. DeLay will be declared ineligible under the provisions of 145.003.
==
145.036
(b) An executive committee may make a replacement nomination following a withdrawal only if:
(1) the candidate:
(A) withdraws because of a catastrophic illness that was diagnosed after the 62nd day before general primary election day and the illness would permanently and continuously
incapacitate the candidate and prevent the candidate from performing the duties of the office sought; and
(B) files with the withdrawal request a certificate describing the illness and signed by at least two licensed physicians;
(2) 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; or
(3) the candidate has been elected or appointed to fill a vacancy in another elective office or has become the nominee for another office.
===
You are ignoring the words "following a withdrawal" in your analysis. DeLay will not withdraw, yet you are applying this section of the law. He will be found ineligible.
At 2:09 PM,
Greg in TX22 said…
I just looked at Slagle v Hannah. That would seem to bolster the argument that a replacement can be named. The Texas Supreme Court said that election laws should be construed liberally in the face of extraordinary events. The Court ordered that replacement candidates be accepted after the statutory deadline.
At 2:42 PM,
Anonymous said…
I guess we read Slagle v. Hannah differently. My copy of the opinion indicates that the Texas Supreme Court found that the candidate had withdrawn for the purposes of Tex.Elec.Code § 145.036(b) even though the candidate “never officially withdrew his nomination for the Board.”
Sounds kind of like someone else I know.
At 8:59 AM,
Greg in TX22 said…
So you want the courts to interpret Slagel v Hannah in order to determine that DeLay withdrew. But you don't want the courts to interpret Slagel v Hannah in order to construe replacement laws liberally.
I doubt the courts will pick and choose like you want them to.
At 9:17 AM,
Anonymous said…
its here
phentermine search
phentermine
tramadol
cialis
At 2:30 PM,
Anonymous said…
Phentermine
Phentermine search
Ringtone search
Tramadol
Phentermine
cialis
At 10:50 PM,
Anonymous said…
Relax and enjoy
Casino
viagra
tramadol
cialis
At 8:10 PM,
Anonymous said…
Latest news. Viagra, cialis
viagra
cialis
tramadol
Post a Comment
<< Home