Swing State Project

« CT-Sen: Lowering Expectations | Main

Monday, April 03, 2006

TX-22: DeLay Retiring!

Posted by DavidNYC

Commenters at DailyKos are saying that CNN & MSNBC are reporting that Tom DeLay is retiring. Can anyone confirm?

UPDATE: The banner on CNN confirms it. Now, to brass tacks. Can DeLay be replaced? At first blush, the answer looks like "no." Here's why I say that. The one part of the Texas Election Code which covers replacement can be found here. There's just one problem: I don't think it's applicable to House races. That's because §145.036 is governed by §145.031, which says:

APPLICABILITY OF SUBCHAPTER. This subchapter applies to a candidate who is a political party's nominee in the general election for state and county officers except a candidate for president or vice-president of the United States.

A House seat would qualify as a "district" office, not a "state" or "county" office. Now, another section of the code, §145.091, does purport to cover all other races:

APPLICABILITY OF SUBCHAPTER. This subchapter applies to a candidate in a general or special election, except the general election for state and county officers.

However, this section of the code, while it permits for withdrawals, contains absolutely no provision for replacements. Yet I'm still baffled, because a number of the sub-sections that fall under the sway of 145.031 (which purportedly only applies to "state and county officers") specifically mention "district offices." This is the full definition of "district office":

"District office" means an office of the federal or state government that is not voted on statewide.

So maybe 145.031 applies only to state district offices? (There is no definition of "state office" in the definitions section of the election code.) That would mean that 145.091 governs federal district offices - a very strange way to do things. No matter what, this is all totally cockamamie. And it just goes to show you that when Republicans holler for judges to "apply the law as it's written," half the time you're left asking, "Well, what the hell does the law even say in the first place?"

So the real question is, did DeLay pull a Gallegly? I find that hard to believe. Then again, DeLay is accused of violating Texas election law, so maybe he's not too familiar with it. Somehow I doubt that Nick Lampson just waltzed into a freebie in TX-22, but who knows? I'm sure we'll know more as the night unfolds.

Posted at 10:24 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Texas | Other Blogs Discussing This Post

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/mt/mt-track-ssp.cgi/2261

Comments

Reminds me of the NJ-Sen race of 2002. Except in that race only Rob Torrcelli was corrupt not the whole party. In this case well not so much The Entire Republican party is corrupt.

Posted by: D in FL. at April 3, 2006 10:32 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The top of CNN.com says that Republican sources have confirmed it.

Posted by: DH from MD at April 3, 2006 10:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

One after another poster on Daily Kos is confirming that the rumor is true. Good riddance to the festering scum, but this is horrible news for Nick Lampson.

Posted by: Mark at April 3, 2006 10:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

This comment seems to indicate that the GOP can't put up a replacement candidate. I'm gonna defer to our legal expert, DavidNYC, before I get too carried away with my glee.

Posted by: HellofaSandwich at April 3, 2006 10:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

GOP can replace due to nature of departure. Check our BOR post here.

Posted by: Karl-T at April 3, 2006 10:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Even if the GOP isn't able to replace DeLay, remember that Steve Stockman is still on the ballot and will definitely caucus with Republicans if elected.

Posted by: Mark at April 3, 2006 10:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Are there any TX election lawyers in the hizzouse?

Posted by: HellofaSandwich at April 3, 2006 10:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

OK, how many more Congressman are going to retire/resign after filings and primaries?

Try this Austin, texas based site, they usually have good info, there is a post about Texas election law:

http://www.burntorangereport.com/frontPage.do

Posted by: Predictor at April 3, 2006 11:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

So, DeLay is saying that he's changing his legal residence to Virginia, which would make him ineligible to run again and would allow the party to run a replacement candidate. Do you see the law confirming this?

Posted by: HellofaSandwich at April 3, 2006 11:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The issue isn't withdrawal. The issue is replacement. I think he can withdraw. I'm just not sure he can be replaced.

Posted by: DavidNYC at April 3, 2006 11:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Nick Lampson must be upset still he has 2 million and if Delay can be replaced the Republican would run from scratch.

Posted by: D in FL. at April 3, 2006 11:16 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

This will get ugly

Posted by: Daniel at April 3, 2006 11:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Predictor, my thoughts exactly. I was breathing sighs of relief when all these filing deadlines passed with all of the corrupt GOP headliners alive and kicking. Now it appears they can all withdraw from the race and their convenience and still hand-pick a replacement. Bob Ney will probably be DeLay's encore later in the week....and then probably Conrad Burns later in the summer.

Posted by: Mark at April 3, 2006 11:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

There are a few definitions that seem to be relevent:

(3) "County office" means an office of the county government that is voted on countywide.

(4) "District office" means an office of the federal or state government that is not voted on statewide.
...
(6) "General election" means an election, other than a primary election, that regularly recurs at fixed dates.
(7) "General election for state and county officers" means the general election at which officers of the federal, state, and county governments are elected.

#4 clearly applies to Congressional races. However, #6 does not indicate that "General elections" must occur statewide. Since "General election for state and county officers" is defined to include federal officers (without specifying that they must be voted on state-wide), it would seem to ALSO apply to Congressional races.

County offices are clearly not voted on state-wide(#3) but are covered under this section. Furthermore,

"District office" means an office of the federal or state government that is not voted on statewide.

seems to indicate that a District Office is covered by

"General election for state and county officers" means the general election at which officers of the federal, state, and county governments are elected.

Then again, IANAL and its not like they're above breaking the law anyway.

Posted by: PantsB at April 3, 2006 11:23 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Well than it should be clear to all of us this case is key. We cannot let Delay get away with this.

Posted by: D in FL. at April 3, 2006 11:25 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

OK, I messed up the blockquotes, but you get the picture.

Posted by: PantsB at April 3, 2006 11:25 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

My read says that the withdrawal is governed by Subchapter D of the same code you guys have been looking at. Specifically, Sec. 145.091 says that those withdrawal rules apply "to a candidate in a general or special election, except the general election for state and county officers." So, general election... not a state or county officer... that's Delay.

The rules seem to allow him to withdraw without too much hassle. Sec. 145.092 lays out a few deadlines depending on the nature of the filing deadlines for the office. I think the one that applies here is subsection (a) which would allow withdrawal up to the second day of early voting.

Caveat... I'm not a Texas election lawyer, and this statute very well could have been modified by court order.

Posted by: Tim Mooney at April 3, 2006 11:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I think PantsB is right. I will update accordingly.

Posted by: DavidNYC at April 3, 2006 11:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Looks like it will be a resignation (by whatever means) to force a special. We're reporting...

Here is what we hear from independent Texas sources. Tom DeLay will resign, probably by the end of the week in order to allow Gov. Rick Perry to call a special election. The presumptive favorite is David Wallace, mayor of Sugar Land. ABC confirms to QR that DeLay will give up his Texas residency and move to the DC area. The story broke through a Time interview.

Posted by: Karl-T at April 3, 2006 11:32 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment