Is anyone skeptical of the meme that the GOP gets to appoint a candidate

[Czolgosz]

to fill DeLay's vacant spot in the ballot?

Re-read § 145.036 of the Texas Election Code:

(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), if a candidate's name is to
be omitted from the ballot under Section 145.035, the political party's
state, district, county, or precinct executive committee, as appropriate
for the particular office, may nominate a replacement candidate to
fill the vacancy in the nomination.
(b) An executive committee may make a replacement nomination following
a withdrawal only if:
(1) the candidate:
(A) withdraws because of a catastrophic illness
that was diagnosed after the 62nd day before general primary
election day and the illness would permanently and continuously
incapacitate the candidate and prevent the candidate from
performing the duties of the office sought; and
(B) files with the withdrawal request a
certificate describing the illness and signed by at least two
licensed physicians;
(2) no political party that held primary elections has a nominee
for the office sought by the withdrawing candidate as of the time of
the withdrawal; or
(3) the candidate has been elected or appointed to fill a vacancy
in another elective office or has become the nominee for another office.

How can DeLay dispute that he has withdrawn? DeLay has clearly announced his withdrawal on national television, and -- most significantly -- he has made this announcement before he has surrendered his status as an inhabitant of Texas under Art. I, sec. 2, cl. 2 of the Constitution and before anyone anywhere has "declared" him "ineligible" for Congress. DeLay's attempt to recast his obvious withdrawal with an untimely effort to blatantly manipulate an after-the-fact finding that he is ineligible to run for Congress is surely not sufficient to get around the Texas Election Code which was drafted to prevent exactly such shenanigans.

Because DeLay has clearly withdrawn, how can he dispute the applicability of § 145.036(b) of the Texas Election Code? If § 145.036(b) applies, as it must, none of the exceptions necessary to allow for the appointment of a substitute candidate have been met. Perry can call a special election, but it will only be to fill the office for a few months before Nick Lampson is elected on a ballot with no Republican candidate.

[rfkrfk]

1. current statements, have what legal standing?

I would think,none.

then

two quacks say Delay is dying

[cosmik debris]

2. I think we need a battalion of lawyers

To file suits and stall any momentum that may try to gain. They can't get traction if they are in court fighting for the legitimacy of their candidate. They can't raise funds, organize a staff or start any kind of campaign if their candidacy is in doubt. BURY THEM IN PAPER!

[susanr516]

3. It certainly looks like

the Election Code specifically prohibits any replacement by the Republicans. However, there is a special session coming up, and the Lege can change the law and make it effective immediately, which might explain the "DeLay delay" in withdrawing. Perry can simply add it to the call. Will he risk the outrage? Would there BE any outrage? If Democrats raise a stink, won't the Rs call us on the little law change WE made when Bentzen ran for VP?

Of course, the Republicans could run their favored individual as an Independent--it's well within the time limit for that route. The tricky part is keeping the also-rans from filing Independent themselves and splitting the vote.

I'm betting convenient law change.

[NoPasaran]

4. Which law was changed for Bentsen?

In 1960, existing Texas law allowed LBJ to appear on the ballot both for re-election to the US Senate and as Kennedy's running mate.

[VelmaD]

5. Right...I thought the law was changed after 1988...

so that no one would be able to do run for 2 different offices at the same tiem again. When Bentsen did it it was legal and had been for a while.

[susanr516]

6. I think you're correct

I just remember people talking about it when Bentsen was on the ticket.

[Czolgosz]

7. There are discussions of this issue at several blogs:

Off the Kuff <http://offthekuff.com/mt/>
South Texas Chisme <http://stxc.blogspot.com/2006/04/lampson-runs-unopposed.html#links>
Right of Texas <http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=23765175&postID=114411843982047292>

[sonias]

8. The Lone Star Project has more good info

http://www.lonestarproject.net/archive/delayresign.html
The Republican Party’s Nominee Replacement Process
Again, no replacement nominee for DeLay’s seat could be named until he has formally left the Congress and established residency outside the State of Texas, thus allowing the State Party Chair to establish his ineligibility. As long as DeLay continues to serve in Congress, he must be, by definition, a Texas resident who is eligible to serve and be on the ballot. To replace DeLay:

* Under Section 145 of the Texas Election Code, the Republican Party’s District Executive Committee would have first shot at naming a replacement nomination.
* Under Section 171.054 of the Texas Election Code, because District 22 includes no whole counties, the district committee would include a precinct chair from each county elected from and by the precinct chairs in those parts of Ft. Bend, Harris, Brazoria and Galveston counties in District 22, leaving four Republican Party officials to choose a nominee instead of the voters for whom Tom DeLay has shown such blatant disregard.
* Should the District Executive Committee fail to name a replacement; the Republican Party’s State Executive Committee could name a replacement nominee.

Sonia

[Czolgosz]

9. The Lone Star Project always has good analysis.