This question is going to sound somewhat snarky, but I don't really mean it to. I am genuinely curious if there is something I am missing.
In a 2002 New Jersey senate race, Senator Robert Torricelli dropped out of his senate race, creating a vacancy. As Democrats lined up to replace him on the ballot, Republicans pointed out that the deadline for that had passed. It went to the courts and the Democrats won both the case and the race.
In a 2006 Houston congressional race, Congressman Tom DeLay drppped out of his congressional race, creating a vacancy. As Republicans lined up to replace him on the ballot, Democrats point out that the deadline for that had passed. It went to the courts and the Democrats won the case.
These two cases are not identical. I can understand logical reasons why the Republicans can take the two differing positions that they did:
1) New Jersey 2002 changed the rules. The courts ruled that it was more important that each party that made the ballot have a nominee than it was specific election statutes were followed. They may have been wrong in 2002, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
2) Tom DeLay did not only drop out of the race, he legally changed his residence from Texas to Virginia, making himself ineligable to serve, thus ineligable to run, thus technically not dropping out and replaceable.
For what it's worth, I don't buy it. I can understand the justification in the first difference, but ideologically it was wrong in 2002 and therefore was wrong in 2006. I also agree with the ruling of the courts, as I understand it, regarding DeLay's residency change: If DeLay wants to serve, he is welcome to move back to Texas. Since he does have the option to do that, his leaving the race (via leaving the state) was voluntary. That sounds about right as DeLay took advantage of what was little more than a loophole.
But while I disagree, I understand the argument being made.
So my question is what differences exist between Jersey 2002 and Houston 2006 that justify the change of heart on the part of the Democrats? Was the New Jersey law particularly unfair?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not naive. From a purely partisan level, parties will do what parties have to in order to achieve their primary function of winning power. But members of political parties often have to justify this to themselves. I imagine that Republicans use the justifications above (or maybe one/some that I missed?).
What justifications are Democrats using?
----
As for my feelings on the matter, I was rather upset that the Democrats sued not because they weren't right (cause I think they were) but because it meant that DeLay could come back and win. DeLay was never in as much trouble as Torricelli, from what I recall. Even despite all the problems he had, he still had an (R) by his name and that is quite possibly enough to get anyone elected in TX CD-22. But Democrats were willing to take that chance in order to have a shot at the seat (which they likely wouldn't have had if DeLay had been replaced on the ballot). The gamble paid off, but the whole maneuver suggests to me that for all their posturing on how DeLay was so uniquely corrupt, his biggest sin was the fact that he was a Republican.
But... it's over now. Due to the GOP's monumental mishandling of the situation, DeLay's very Republican district will almost certainly vote in a Democrat. I have no more sympathy for the GOP here than I did the New Jersey Democrats. Parties that don't ditch corrupt candidates until it's evident that they may lose deserve to lose. I'm sorry that didn't happen in 2002, but I am definitely not sorry that it's going to happen in Texas in 2006.
All of this reminds me... I need to register to vote and find out who my congressman is.
>>I also agree with the ruling of the courts, as I understand it, regarding DeLay's residency change: If DeLay wants to serve, he is welcome to move back to Texas. Since he does have the option to do that, his leaving the race (via leaving the state) was voluntary. That sounds about right as DeLay took advantage of what was little more than a loophole.<<
Actually, the ruling of the fifth circuit went beyond that. They held Tina Benkiser's power to declare a candidate ineligible -- a power granted by state election law that is recognized in the decision -- unconstitutional.
I thought it actually raised a pretty interesting constitutional question, and was a little surprised by the lack of deference to state law. I'm sure it would come as quite a shock to the legislators who designed Texas law that it's now unconstitutional!
Regardless, Benkiser's actions did violate the spirit of state election law designed to frustrate party elites who might attempt to switch out candidates who won primaries for candidates that voters never approved because one candidate might lose. Her "loophole" was right there in state law, and I still think there's a good case it's a legally valid loophole and that the U.S. Constitution arguably doesn't reach that loophole, but I can't say that I'm terribly sad over the political outcome in this case.
You can get WAY too clever with loopholes. Sometimes they'll bite you in the arse. :)
Interesting. I'd thought that they held that she was ineligable to choose a new candidate, not to take DeLay off the ballot. I must have mis-read it.
They relied heavily on the 5-4 1995 Term Limits case, in arguing that states cannot modify the Constitution's eligibility clause, and that Benkiser's action amounted to a pre-election action prohibited by that clause.
Of course, I believe that term limits case was wrongly decided, and indeed, the Thomas dissent reads more like a majority opinion than a dissent. I'm convinced that Kennedy switched his vote at the last minute in that case, forcing the two sides to rewrite their opinions at the very last minute to reflect that fact.
Pretty interesting stuff, honestly! I didn't really think we'd ever revisit that term limits case. :)
Happy Birthday, Alex. :)
I hope you have a good day of fun in Austin! Hope everything is going well down there. Hope you're getting some shows in.
I need to remember my account name and password. :)
-Jason
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
