On July 6, U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks, a Bush Sr. appointee, ruled that Congressman Tom DeLay is eligible to run for re-election. This is not the ruling DeLay wanted. Texas election law says when a nominee is “ineligible” he may resign and be replaced by a new nominee, chosen by a party committee. Texas Democratic Party v Benkiser, A-06-CA-459.

DeLay is still free to withdraw for any reason, but without a declaration that he is ineligible, the Republican Party could not replace him with a new nominee.

Probably DeLay will remain on the ballot, and Republican Party activists will campaign for a vote for him, so that after the election, he could resign (assuming he is re-elected). Then, there would be a special election early in 2007.

The decision is only the third election law decision based on US Term Limits v Thornton. That 1995 decision struck down term limits for members of Congress. It established that states cannot add to the qualifications listed in the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution’s only residency requirement for candidates for Congress is that they reside in the state they seek to represent on election day. Although the Texas court assumed that DeLay has indeed moved out of Texas and into Virginia, that is irrelevant. The residency requirement only applies on election day in November, and no one knows where DeLay will be living in November 2006.

The other two decisions based on US Term Limits v Thornton were from California and Colorado. They both said states cannot keep individuals off the ballot as candidates for Congress on the grounds that these individuals are not registered to vote.