Grimm Scenarios

[hrmjustin]

JERRY H. GOLDFEDER

The anticipated indictment of Rep. Michael Grimm has raised questions about his viability as a candidate and the chances of his Democratic challenger, former New York City Councilman Domenic Recchia. It also has prompted a whirlwind of speculation about if and how he could be replaced as the Republican Party’s nominee.

I will leave the political prognosticating for another day. Here I will address the ballot issues.

Two sets of rules come into play: New York Election Law and the United States Constitution. According to New York law, designating petitions for the Republican line were due on April 10, and Grimm duly filed them. He had until four days later, April 14, to “decline” the nomination. Candidates do that from time to time for a variety of reasons, usually because they want their Committee to Fill Vacancies (political allies and supporters) to choose a replacement. Declination is rare; in any event, Grimm did not opt to do so. Moreover, no one submitted petitions to run against him in the Republican primary. Grimm is the Republican nominee.

http://www.cityandstateny.com/2/75/new-york-city/grimm-scenarios.html#.U1_mPnnD9cu

[Gothmog]

1. The GOP is probably stuck with Grimm

I doubt that he would agree to move or get off the ballot voluntarily

[hrmjustin]

2. I agree. His dgo is big and a resignation or dropping out of the race makes him look guilty.

The only reason for him to do it is if there is a plea deal.

[Gothmog]

3. The article cited in OP talks about the Tom DeLay precident

The article cited in the OP is very interesting to me and cites the Tom DeLay precident.

Generally for state offices, if one moves out of the state or is convicted of a felony, a candidate is no longer eligible for public office. Not so here. According to the United States Constitution, eligibility to serve in the House of Representatives requires one to be a resident of the state (not the district, by the way) on Election Day. This has been interpreted to mean what it says: one need not be a resident of the state before that. Thus, moving out of the state before Election Day would not allow Grimm’s name to be stricken from the ballot. After all, he could change his mind and move back home.

Precedent supports this analysis. In 2006 Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), under indictment at the time, wished to get off the ballot for the general election so that Republicans would have a shot of retaining his House seat. The GOP would be able to replace him if he were no longer eligible, so he moved to Virginia and swore that he wasn’t going back to the Lone Star State. As a non-resident, he argued, he was no longer eligible for Congress, and, under Texas law, another candidate could take his place. Applying federal constitutional law, however, the courts saw it differently. In that he could potentially move back to Texas on Election Day, he was not yet ineligible. Even Justice Scalia weighed in on this legal imbroglio, and
DeLay remained constitutionally eligible to run for the seat.

Thus, were Grimm to move to another state, the DeLay precedent would undoubtedly be invoked by New York Democrats to keep him on the ballot.

(By the way, under Texas law, DeLay was able to take his name off the ballot by “withdrawing” from the race, but in that he was not ineligible, the GOP couldn’t replace him. As a result, there was no candidate on the GOP line, and a write-in campaign for a Republican was mounted. New York law doesn’t permit such withdrawals.)

If the GOP tries to remove Grimm from the ballot, there will be litigation and I think that the Democrats will win. Wally Kronzer handled the DeLay case and I am sure that he would be glad to help here (not that New York does not have a few lawyers who are democrats).

[hrmjustin]

4. I emailed my local dem office and they said they would sue to keep him on the ballot.

[hrmjustin]

5. Assemblywoman Malliotakis plans run for Grimm’s seat

http://nypost.com/2014/04/29/assemblywoman-malliotakis-plans-run-for-grimms-seat/