Court to expedite DeLay's ballot case

[rodeodance]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/ap_on_el_ho/delay_s_replacement;_ylt=Aiio2ZrExiFrnVku0YKr2nas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OTB1amhuBHNlYwNtdHM-
Court to expedite DeLay's ballot case

By APRIL CASTRO, Associated Press Writer 24 minutes ago

AUSTIN, Texas - An appeals court agreed Thursday to speed up proceedings in a dispute over whether former U.S. Rep.
Tom DeLay should remain on the November ballot.
ADVERTISEMENT

The case will be submitted to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 31, the New Orleans court ruled.

Texas Republicans asked the court earlier this week to expedite the case, saying there are deadlines in August for replacing the former U.S. House majority leader with another Republican nominee.

DeLay, who is awaiting trial on state charges of money laundering and conspiracy in a campaign finance case, won the Republican primary in March but resigned from Congress in June and said he has moved to Virginia.........

[bluestateguy]

1. The Court is setting up to give Baby Bush what he wants, again

I fail to see how this case is a matter of such urgency that it needs to be "expedited". I would say that the Court should issue a ruling on this matter sometime next year. If DeLay wants to be on the ballot next year for the 2006 election, then I am just fine with that.

[tritsofme]

2. I've never seen how this is much different than the Torricelli situation

Political parties replacing corrupt candidates with another candidate more likely to win, violating election guidelines in the process.

[dysfunctional press]

3. well...toricelli was in ohio, and delay is in texas.

different states, different laws.

[tritsofme]

5. And the law in NJ was set aside

in order to ensure the sanctity of the "two party system" and so that voters could have a legitimate choice.

It seems like hypocrisy to me, and I really don't like it.

[DelawareValleyDem]

8. A law was set aside?

The unanimous opinion of the NJ Supreme Court stated that the applicable statute did NOT preclude a ballot replacement within 51 days of an election. I see no hypocrisy in different verdicts when the states, statutes, precedents and circumstances are all different.

http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/torricelli/njdpsmsn100202scord.pdf

[Biernuts]

6. But ...Toricello's deadline under state law had passed and

the court case sought a ruling to get a judge to regard the deadline imposed by NJ law.

The core legal issues are somewhat different. In NJ, it was to set aside enforcemenmt of the state law as it applied deadlines for replacing a candidate.

In Texas, it's not a deadline issue, but whether anyone can be declared ineligible to run based upon residency. I believe Texas law requires residency on election day and that Virginia residency in July or August, doesn't necessarily equate to Virginia residence on election day.

The argument is that Delay could live in Virginia right up to election day, then show up in Texas on November 7th, declare himself a Texan and be eligible to represent his old district. Requiring Texas residency prior to election day could amount to establishing a state-imposed qualification for serving in the congress when the Constitution alone sets that criterta. It's the same legal basis for striking congressional term limits some states have attempted - When the Constitution defines eligibility criteria, it is unconstitutional for a state to impose different requirements.

[dysfunctional press]

9. oops- i was thinking of traficant, not toricelli...

should be New Jersey and texas.

[HuffleClaw]

4. bwhaahhaahhahaaa

suuuure, they want THIS case 'expedited' but drag their heels when its anything else.

[Biernuts]

7. It's not an unreasonable request - plenty of precedent

If it's not expedited, it's made moot. Have you any doubt that if the ruling being appealed was that Delay could be replaced, that Texas Dems wouldn't seek an expedited hearing so that it was relevant to the election at hand?