Allison
07-06-2006, 02:37 PM
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/14979384.htm
This is really interesting.
Delay won The Republican primary for his district in March. He later resigns his seat and announces that he doesn't intend to run in November.
But, according to election laws, if a candidate withdraws from a race after having won a primary, his party can't replace him on the ballot. So, Delay instead tries to get himself declared ineligible because then the GOP can hand-pick a replacement to put on the ballot. To do this, he changed the address on his drivers license to the one he's maintained in Virginia. (He's had a home there for 12 years, in which he's lived when Congress was in session.) And he changed his voter registration. Voila! No longer a resident of Texas and therefore ineligible, right? Well, the Democratic Party challenged the claim that he was ineligible and won.
Delay still maintains a home in Houston, where his family still lives and where he frequently "visits." Also, Delay couldn't say where he'd be on election day, so the judge ruled that there wasn't enough evidence to declare him ineligible based on residency requirements. There will, no doubt, be an appeal.
Really interesting. If I may muse a while ....
On first thought, it seemed a rather petty move on the part of Democrats. If the guy wants out, just let him out and allow another Republican on the ballot. But, then again, I think it's a pretty good rule that says a party can't simply replace a candidate who voters have put on a ballot. If that rule weren't in place, what's to prevent parties from running a squeaky-clean candidate in the primary, and then replacing him on the ballot the day before the election with someone that voters wouldn't have approved? Isn't that a manipulation and a subversion of the democratic process?
But, then again, it seems pretty cold to penalize an entire party because a candidate wants to withdraw. Maybe there should be a way in which another primary could be held if a candidate withdraws, and if there's enough time before the election. Of course, that costs a lot money. But maybe the party requesting the new primary could foot the bill or something. Of course, that would be a conflict of interest, wouldn't it?
I dunno. It doesn't seem fair no matter what happens.
This is really interesting.
Delay won The Republican primary for his district in March. He later resigns his seat and announces that he doesn't intend to run in November.
But, according to election laws, if a candidate withdraws from a race after having won a primary, his party can't replace him on the ballot. So, Delay instead tries to get himself declared ineligible because then the GOP can hand-pick a replacement to put on the ballot. To do this, he changed the address on his drivers license to the one he's maintained in Virginia. (He's had a home there for 12 years, in which he's lived when Congress was in session.) And he changed his voter registration. Voila! No longer a resident of Texas and therefore ineligible, right? Well, the Democratic Party challenged the claim that he was ineligible and won.
Delay still maintains a home in Houston, where his family still lives and where he frequently "visits." Also, Delay couldn't say where he'd be on election day, so the judge ruled that there wasn't enough evidence to declare him ineligible based on residency requirements. There will, no doubt, be an appeal.
Really interesting. If I may muse a while ....
On first thought, it seemed a rather petty move on the part of Democrats. If the guy wants out, just let him out and allow another Republican on the ballot. But, then again, I think it's a pretty good rule that says a party can't simply replace a candidate who voters have put on a ballot. If that rule weren't in place, what's to prevent parties from running a squeaky-clean candidate in the primary, and then replacing him on the ballot the day before the election with someone that voters wouldn't have approved? Isn't that a manipulation and a subversion of the democratic process?
But, then again, it seems pretty cold to penalize an entire party because a candidate wants to withdraw. Maybe there should be a way in which another primary could be held if a candidate withdraws, and if there's enough time before the election. Of course, that costs a lot money. But maybe the party requesting the new primary could foot the bill or something. Of course, that would be a conflict of interest, wouldn't it?
I dunno. It doesn't seem fair no matter what happens.