Hahahaha, but wait, we gerryamndered that special!Follow

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/4029995.html


Now that a federal judge has ruled that the Texas Republican Party may not replace Tom DeLay on the November ballot despite the fact that he has resigned from Congress and moved to Virginia, Republican officials say the voters are the victims.

If the Democrats win that district I'll likely be dehydtrated for days from the lack of fluids caused by the multpile orgasms.

HAhahaha. Ahh.



Edited, Jul 7th 2006 at 11:59am EDT by Smasharoo

If?

Well, I heard the gays want to be able to own cattle, so that might drive GoP turn out.

Such is apparently the law though and it was a law that the party was well aware of. DeLay chose to be in the primaries knowing the law. DeLay decided to cut and run (heh) after winning the primaries knowing the law. DeLay & the state party tried to circumvent the law so they could have their cake and eat it too.

As the column states, it is pretty lame that there can't be a Republican candidate on the ballot but the only ones to blame for that is DeLay & Co.

Well. I wouldn't get that excited. IIRC they gerrymandered the district to have *less* of a majority of Republicans in order to push those voters into closer districts. So it's not like they spent tons of effort to get an advantage in that one district and now may lose it due to the legal rulings. The other districts that got extra Republican voters in them will still have them.

Could be wrong, but I do seem to remember way back that they were narrowing the marjin in his district so they could bring other districts into play.


Heh. And I've got to comment about the patheticness of your position when the best hope you've got is to win on a legal technicality. I guess the whole ideal of making sure everyone's vote counts only exists when it's a Democrat's chances that are on the line...

And the laws were not that clear when they withdrew him from the race. The law states that a replacement candidate can be put on the ballot if the one chosen in the primary is "ineligible to run" and this status is requested at least 90 days before the election date. State residency is one of the eligibility requirements for holding office, so it's not exactly like it was unreasonable to assume that if he moved out of the state, he would become inelible to serve the office, and a second candidate could be put on the ballot in his place.

Whether they were playing fast and loose with the rules in order to put another candidate on the ticket and got "caught", or whether their opposition is using a "unique" interpretation of the state laws to block that move is a matter of opinion. But in any case, we are dealing with legal technicalities which ultimately result in the voters not getting to vote fairly. In any sane system, there'd be a recognition that given the indictments against Delay the Republicans should be allowed to replace him as their candidate. That would seem a reasonable right for a political party to have in this case. That the laws apparently don't allow for this is the problem IMO.

The Dems should put Ashcroft on the ballot. Then DeLay is sure to win!

Smashed,

How'd that Kerry campaigning work out for ya?

Achileez

I don't know if voter's rights are being violated -- the voters can still write in and vote for whoever they please. More to the point, the primary voters picked DeLay and DeLay is who is on the ballot. If DeLay doesn't want to be on the ballot, he can formally withdraw instead of trying jurisdiction shennanigans to get himself disqualified. Until DeLay formally withdraws, it can be assumed that he intends to remain on the ballot and, per the findings of the courts thus far and the Constitution, he is a valid candidate up to the point of election.

My dubious expression was more regarding the practicality of kicking the SCOTUS judges out of bed before October to rule on a case which, so far, has been pretty well grounded. I can understand why they'd need to do it sooner rather than later but I don't see the SCOTUS ruling differently on the facts of the case.

Well, it's sort of right to vote versus right to vote since they voted for DeLay in the primary. So long as they can write in a name, I'm not seeing a really pressing issue.

Nah, Joph is just scandalized at the idea of people who would kick other people out of bed. This is a man who loves his sleep.

And neither does being under indictment. Now, if he'd been convicted, they'd have a shot.

He should confess to a felony. It's win-win.

It's all a matter of perspective. One could also say that they were un-gerrymandering the districts from the 80 years that the Dems controlled the state legistlature.

Both sides do this. It's not unique to any particular political party. To argue that the old district lines were perfectly ok when they were the result of 80 years of Dems adjustments to give them political advantage but it's totally wrong when the Republicans gain control despite this and want to do it is just a tiny bit hypocritical. Ok. It's more then just a tiny bit hypocritical. It's massively hypocritical.

Kinda like how Dems seemed to have no problem with the lobbying system they largely built in the US when they had the majority in Congress and that system funneled large amounts of money to their candidates by nature of having that majority, but it's suddenly a "culture of corruption" once the Republican's gain the majority and the lobbying funds shift their way.

Double standard? Yeah. I think so...