The Republican Party of Texas said on August 3 that it will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the 5th circuit’s decision in the Tom DeLay withdrawal and replacement lawsuit. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news.
Reply
On August 3, the 5th circuit agreed with the U.S. District Court, that Texas Republicans may not name a new candidate for U.S. House in the 22nd district. Tom DeLay is still free to withdraw, but if he does, the Republican Party won’t have a nominee. Texas Democratic Party v Benkiser, 06-50812.
The decision is an indirect victory for ballot access. In 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot add to the qualifications listed in Article One of the Constitution, for someone to be elected to Congress. Of course, state ballot access laws in many states do make it impossible for certain candidates to run for Congress. The worst example is Georgia, which has kept all minor party members off the ballot for U.S. House ever since the current law was passed in 1943.
Since the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court term limits decision, there had (until August 3, 2006) only been two lower court ruling, applying the principle set forth in the term limits case. The 9th and 10th circuits had ruled that states cannot require candidates for congress to be registered voters. The August 3, 2006 decision Texas Democratic Party v Benkiser is the third such ruling. The 5th circuit agreed with the 9th and 10th circuits. Applying the principle, the 5th circuit said that Tom DeLay is eligible to be a member of Congress. The fact that he has moved to Virginia from Texas is irrelevant. Article One has no residency requirement for candidates for Congress, except to say that they must be residents of the state they seek to represent “on election day”. Since no one can know where DeLay will be living on November 7, 2006, is he eligible. Because he is eligible, he cannot resign and be replaced with another Republican nominee.
A U.S. District Court will hold oral arguments in Morrison v Colley on August 30. This is the case filed by an independent candidate for U.S. House, Charlie Morrison. He turned in enough signatures to be on the ballot, but was still barred, because he had voted in the Republican primary and had run for party office. Ohio law does not clear say if these actions prevent individuals from being independent candidates. The lawsuit argues that the Ohio law, as interpreted by the Secretary of State, is hopelessly vague.
On August 2, the Illinois Democratic Party challenges to two minor party petitions appear to have come to nothing. The statewide Green Party slate, and the Socialist Equality petition in one legislative district, seem to have enough valid signatures. The challenge process involved representatives from each side sitting for days in the offices of the State Board of Elections, while employees checked each signature. Each side has an opportunity to object to the employee’s conclusion that a signature is either valid or invalid. The process is now complete and both petitions have enough. However, Democrats are still free to challenge the final results in court.
The Green Party petition needed 25,000 valid signatures, and had 39,000 raw signatures. The Socialist Equality petition, for state rep in the 52nd district, needed 2,985 signatures and contained 4,991 raw signatures. Candidates for US House and state legislature in Illinois need signatures equal to 5% of the last vote cast in that district.
On August 2, Daily Kos reported that conservatives are responsible for paying “all but $30” of the costs for getting the Pennsylvania Green Party statewide candidates on the ballot. The truth is that Pennsylvania Green volunteers got 30,000 signatures (just as they did in 2004, when the party got on with an all-volunteer effort), and the remaining 65,000 signatures were paid circulators.
The $30 relates to the bank account of the Luzerne County Greens. There have been plenty of monetary contributions from Pennsylvania Greens themselves to their own ballot drive, but it went into the state party’s bank account.
Daily Kos should consider that the real motivation of the conservative donors who contributed to the paid petition effort was not so much to get the Green Party on the ballot, as to trick the Democrats into acting like a bully. The Democratic Party of Pennsylvania has fallen into this trap, with the announcement today that the party will challenge the Green petitions. In 2002, the Pennsylvania Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Ed Rendell, actually signed the statewide Green Party petition, to show that the Democratic Party of Pennsylvania was confident, open-minded, and not afraid of competition. Rendell was elected. The face of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party in 2006 has changed.