Swing State Project

« CT-Sen: Lowering Expectations | Main | TX-22: Bugman Bugs Out »

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.

UPDATE: I think PantsB in comments just clarified everything. There is a specific definition for "general election for state and county officers," and it's a wee bit unexpected:

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

So somehow, the phrase "state and county" includes "federal." Weird. Well, that would mean that §145.036 would definitely apply to DeLay, and a replacement can indeed be made.

Posted at 10:24 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Texas | Technorati

Trackback Pings

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

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference TX-22: DeLay Retiring!:

» The Bugman Turns The Nozzle On Himself - maybe from The Galloping Beaver
The resignation of Congressman Tom DeLay (R TX-22) caused a nice buzz throughout the blogosphere. The right was screaming "politics of personal destruction" and the left just applauded - loudly, and I was among them. DeLay's resignation came on th... [Read More]

Tracked on April 5, 2006 02:57 AM

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 relevant:

(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

To top it off he's moving to very blue Alexandria. Granted its Virginia, but what is that all about. Easy commute for a lobbyist?

I remember posting a while back at primary time that the 62% showing he got was not going to be good enough to win, esp with Stockman running as an Indy.

Is our target better or worse? In some ways he seems more easy game after this.

Posted by: Predictor at April 3, 2006 11:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I feel bad for VA now they get stuck with Delay.

Posted by: D in FL. at April 3, 2006 11:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

One more thing to consider: In Texas, the difference between a special election for an unexpired term of Congress and a regular election for Congress is that the former requires a majority vote to win. The November election is won with a simple plurality.

My guess is that DeLay thought that Nick Lampson would have a better shot at getting a plurality in November, what with Steve Stockman and a Lib Party candidate crowding the ballot, than he would at getting a majority before November. The man is nothing if not calculating, and that's what I think he added up.

Posted by: Charles Kuffner at April 3, 2006 11:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Posted on Burnt Orange Report & very appropriate:

Matt Angle, former chief of US Rep. Martin Frost, runs the Lone Star Project out of Washington, DC. Angle says DeLay’s mission is now complete.

"Tom DeLay has managed to remove every single leader in the Texas delegation, including himself," Angle said. "He’s removed three ranking members, a key whip and now the majority leader of the House."

Posted by: Predictor at April 3, 2006 11:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Kuff: The bit at the end of the Time magazine piece indicates that DeLay is expecting to be replaced on the general election ballot - NOT that he expects Perry to call a special election.

Posted by: DavidNYC at April 3, 2006 11:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I think that the looking over the code has to continue, because I don't trust Republicans to intrepret a law.

If they want, they can pick between Fjetland, Baig, and Campbell.

But when it comes down to it, DeLay is going to get indicted very soon. Which is why he is getting the hell out of Congress.

Tony Rudy.

His excuse about "not beating Lampson by enough" is just a lie. He knows that he's not going to get any better in the polls.

Posted by: RBH at April 3, 2006 11:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

All the conservative rightwingers immediately cleared out of Politics1 dot com.
Guess they went to have a drink and regroup.
LOL.

Posted by: Predictor at April 3, 2006 11:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Is a special election necessary?

Section 203 of the Election Code, which describes the special process for the sate legislature, but also applies for the US House, seems to indicate that it is. In this case, a special election must be held on the first Tuesday that falls 36 at least days after the election is ordered.

Art. III, Sec. 13 of the Const. says that the Governor must order a special election within twenty days of the vacancy occurring. Does this aply to US House vacancies as well?

Posted by: Craig McLaughlin at April 4, 2006 12:12 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

David, right now it's looking like there will be a special election. If DeLay is actually resigning from Congress, then there will have to be one.

We'll know more soon enough. All I'm saying is that if there is a special, it will require a majority to win, which is something that a general election does not do.

Posted by: Charles Kuffner at April 4, 2006 12:18 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Kuff: The section on special elections looked like it was discretionary, not mandatory, as to whether one is called. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong about TX election law tonight.

Posted by: DavidNYC at April 4, 2006 12:20 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The section on special elections looked like it was discretionary

You may be right about that. Of course, Governor Perry is a close DeLay ally, so if DeLay did calculate things as I think, then I'm sure Perry is on the same page.

It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong about TX election law tonight.

Me, either. :-)

Posted by: Charles Kuffner at April 4, 2006 12:23 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I think there's a different reason he's becoming ineligible by moving. Under Texas Election Code section 141.038(a)(2), that allows him to get a refund of his filing fee. He might be that hard up for funds to pay DeGuerin's legal fees.

Or did he actually collect 500 signatures to get on the ballot?

Posted by: Kenneth Fair at April 4, 2006 12:23 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Hold on a second....

I read Section §145.036 as applying to Tom DeLay based on the definition of "general election of state and county officers" as stated above.

BUT §145.036 seems to permit a replacement candidate only if ONE of THREE reasons is met. DeLay's withdrawal doesn't appear to meet any of them.

From my reading of §145.035, an Executive Committee can only replace a candidate chosen at a primary election if:
(1) the candidate has an illness that was unknown and causes his withdrawal
OR
(2) no political party that held a primary has a nominee for the office sought;
OR
(3) the candidate has been elected or appointed to fill another vacancy in another elective office or has become the nominee for another office.

DeLay's withdrawal from the Republican nomination in TX-22 meets NONE of those conditions.

Can anyone shed any light on this? Is there a controlling authority other than §145.036?

Posted by: JasonCNJ at April 4, 2006 01:04 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

IL 2004 US Senate Race, Obama vs Ryan, then Ryan out, Keyes in. . . .

They will put up someone else. It happened in Illinois in 2004.

The GOP's fair haired son Jack Ryan (married to Star Trek Voyager's Seven of Nine) was tossed from the GOP ticket for sexual misconduct. (He wanted Jeri to have sex with other men - how deviant is THAT?!) They offered the candidacy to anyone who would take it, then, as a last resort, ended up with Alan Keyes - the most pathetic excuse for a candidate EVER.

Keyes was a sacrificial lamb, but my GOD! was he horrible! Obnoxious, offensive, insulting of EVERYONE...

Since Nick Lampson is a strong candidate and former Congressman (he was aced out in DeLay's criminal redistricting), I predict the GOP will put a sacrificial lamb in there, too.

Rack this one up to the Democrats in November.

Posted by: Delfino at April 4, 2006 01:46 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

well, I don't think that we should count the race as a pickup just yet.

And while I agree that the Texas GOP will TRY to replace DeLay with someone...

my obviously unexpert reading of the applicable section seems to preclude the Texas GOP from filling the vacancy in nomination since DeLay did not withdraw under the specified conditions.

...Unless someone can shed some new legal light on a provision I may have missed?

Posted by: JasonCNJ at April 4, 2006 01:49 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Let's make sure to spin this situation as it honestly and correctly is. This man would have people believe that he is sacrificing himself for a greater good. Instead, these are the actions of a man who has callous disregard for fulfilling his obligations as an elected official to his country, his government, and his constituents in order to perpetuate power for the Repubs and the wingnuts. We should use his picture from his arraignment to make him the poster child of irresponsible Republican representation. Then let's roll up our sleeves and get Lampson elected in a special election, followed by more Dem victories in November.

Posted by: phonatic at April 4, 2006 05:09 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment