Tom DeLay Abandons His District (And Over 600,000 People) to Protect Politics
Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) correctly predicted that he would not be able to call an emergency special election to fill the congressional seat for the 22nd Congressional District. As the Houston Chronicle reported on Friday, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay had to have resigned by Friday in order for the governor to call a special election.
This situation is due to there only being two uniform election days remaining in the year, May 13th and November 7th, which is also the general election. Additionally, Texas law requires a minimum of 36 days for a race to be placed on the ballot. Conveniently, DeLay said he will not formally leave his office until June.
There is no doubt that DeLay's choice of the time when he actually leaves Congress is a calculated political maneuver. If an election were called for May 13th, the Democratic challenger, Nick Lampson, a former House member that was a casualty of the Texas redistricting, would have a decent chance of winning the election, giving him the seat before the November general election. Although the November election may be very competitive, the winner of the special election would almost certainly also win the general election, which would remain true should Lampson have won the special election. DeLay, by delaying his resignation, gives the Republicans a better chance of retaining the seat.
While DeLay is capitalizing on Texan election laws to attempt to pull off one last political victory as a member of Congress, he is abandoning the most basic duty of a member of Congress by depriving his district of a representative until November, when a special election to fill the seat for the rest of the year occurs at the same time as the general election (where the term will begin in January).
Perhaps the voters of the 22nd Congressional District in Texas want to elect someone to represent them from May until November. Tom DeLay is preventing that from happening. Sure, the voters may have elected Lampson, a Democrat. But that would have been their choice, not DeLay's. There would be another election in November and Republicans would have a decent chance of retaking the seat.
Perhaps the voters of the 22nd Congressional District in Texas would elect the Republican candidate. That should be acceptable to DeLay and also very possible; DeLay won the 2004 election and many before that and the redistricting in Texas was designed to help the Republicans. But Tom DeLay thought it was better that the district has no representation at all.
Tom DeLay would rather play politics than care about the needs of the voters in the 22nd District.
Granted, Congress this year isn't going to do much representing. After all, Congress will only be in session for a little under one-quarter of the year. Congress is going on an Easter break just after they came back from a break and a long summer break is planned. Congress will be in session fewer days than the famous 1948 "Do Nothing Congress." However, DeLay should not be forcing his district to have no representation at all.
If this is what DeLay does to help out his party, perhaps the voters of the 22nd Congressional District will send a reply against DeLay's wishes.
"We should hold the election on May 13th to avoid a gap of several months in representation for the suburban Houston district," Lampson said, reported by the Washington Post.
"We can't be without a voice in Washington D.C., while someone is here playing politics," Lampson said before the governor made his announcement, reported in the Chronicle.
Of course, Lampson has a vested interest if a special election was called. However, looking past party politics, he is absolutely correct. DeLay is denying the people of the 22nd of their representation.
It is just as well that DeLay will be leaving Congress. He deserves to leave the Congress because of his denial of representation for the district. That would be a cause to vote against an incumbent if he or she does not represent the people by not showing up to work.
It's just a shame that DeLay abused his right to resign to select a time that will deny representation for nearly half a year, approximately one-fifth of the congressional term, because he may have angered voters enough to vote for the Democrat.
This situation is due to there only being two uniform election days remaining in the year, May 13th and November 7th, which is also the general election. Additionally, Texas law requires a minimum of 36 days for a race to be placed on the ballot. Conveniently, DeLay said he will not formally leave his office until June.
There is no doubt that DeLay's choice of the time when he actually leaves Congress is a calculated political maneuver. If an election were called for May 13th, the Democratic challenger, Nick Lampson, a former House member that was a casualty of the Texas redistricting, would have a decent chance of winning the election, giving him the seat before the November general election. Although the November election may be very competitive, the winner of the special election would almost certainly also win the general election, which would remain true should Lampson have won the special election. DeLay, by delaying his resignation, gives the Republicans a better chance of retaining the seat.
While DeLay is capitalizing on Texan election laws to attempt to pull off one last political victory as a member of Congress, he is abandoning the most basic duty of a member of Congress by depriving his district of a representative until November, when a special election to fill the seat for the rest of the year occurs at the same time as the general election (where the term will begin in January).
Perhaps the voters of the 22nd Congressional District in Texas want to elect someone to represent them from May until November. Tom DeLay is preventing that from happening. Sure, the voters may have elected Lampson, a Democrat. But that would have been their choice, not DeLay's. There would be another election in November and Republicans would have a decent chance of retaking the seat.
Perhaps the voters of the 22nd Congressional District in Texas would elect the Republican candidate. That should be acceptable to DeLay and also very possible; DeLay won the 2004 election and many before that and the redistricting in Texas was designed to help the Republicans. But Tom DeLay thought it was better that the district has no representation at all.
Tom DeLay would rather play politics than care about the needs of the voters in the 22nd District.
Granted, Congress this year isn't going to do much representing. After all, Congress will only be in session for a little under one-quarter of the year. Congress is going on an Easter break just after they came back from a break and a long summer break is planned. Congress will be in session fewer days than the famous 1948 "Do Nothing Congress." However, DeLay should not be forcing his district to have no representation at all.
If this is what DeLay does to help out his party, perhaps the voters of the 22nd Congressional District will send a reply against DeLay's wishes.
"We should hold the election on May 13th to avoid a gap of several months in representation for the suburban Houston district," Lampson said, reported by the Washington Post.
"We can't be without a voice in Washington D.C., while someone is here playing politics," Lampson said before the governor made his announcement, reported in the Chronicle.
Of course, Lampson has a vested interest if a special election was called. However, looking past party politics, he is absolutely correct. DeLay is denying the people of the 22nd of their representation.
It is just as well that DeLay will be leaving Congress. He deserves to leave the Congress because of his denial of representation for the district. That would be a cause to vote against an incumbent if he or she does not represent the people by not showing up to work.
It's just a shame that DeLay abused his right to resign to select a time that will deny representation for nearly half a year, approximately one-fifth of the congressional term, because he may have angered voters enough to vote for the Democrat.
posted by Will at 12:56 AM
6 Comments:
Your understanding of Texas election law is inaccurate. You are confusing when Governor Perry *must* order a special election and when he *may* order a special election.
According to Texas election law, Governor Perry *must* call a special election to fill DeLay's seat by November 7. That is the latest date he *may* call a special. However, Governor Perry *may* order a special election at any time there is a vacancy. Perry *may* call a special election 36 days after he receives DeLay's resignation.
At the current time, Perry says he won't call an emergency special election although he won't rule it out. Perry originally said he would call an emergency special election.
The NRCC has been conducting an autodialer poll in TX22 to determine what the voters want. My money says that Governor Perry will call an emergency special election. It will be necessary to heal the fractured Republican Party in TX22. The Party can't afford to nominate a successor to DeLay in a back-room deal, no matter what The Hammer says.
I was under that impression that May 13th was the last day to hold an election, but then I found that one must be held on Election Day to finish out the term, but May 13th was the last uniform election day throughout the district before November and that DeLay could have resigned before the cutoff date 36 days prior to May 13th.
So, if DeLay resigns, say on June 1st, Perry can force a special election in mid-July?
Yes, Governor Perry may call an emergency special election. See § 203.004 of the Texas Election Code.
Your first impression may be that Chapter 203 only applies to the state legislature. But § 204.021 says that Chapter 203 also applies to vacancies in the US House of Representatives.
Interesting. Though, as you pointed out on your page, Perry doesn't look like he'll go for an emergency special election. At least, not until everyone is more confident that Lampson would not win the seat.
If the district is a conservative, Republican district, like Republicans assert, then what's the harm in filling the seat as soon as possible after DeLay stops beating around the bush?
What's the harm in an emergency special?
With many Republicans and one Democrat (Nick Lampson) running in a hypothetical emergency special, there would be a runoff between Lampson and the Republican with the most votes. Whoever the Republican is would win the runoff.
The guy who ran the serious integrity-based campaign against DeLay in the primary, Tom Campbell, would run in a emergency special. The Republican establishment harbors some sour grapes over Campbell's primary campaign. The Republican establishment doesn't want Campbell to make it to the runoff with Lampson. Therefore, the Republican establishment doesn't want an emergency special.
I'm not sure this strategy is wise. It keeps the Republican base fractured. An emergency special would heal the party.
When I found out the NRCC is conducting an auto-dialer poll to determine whether or not to have an emergency special, I figured the national Republicans are worried about what the local Republicans were doing. I kind of expect an emergency special now.
It'd be a benefit to the district to actually have a representative for those several months; even if the Congress is hardly around, there should be some important bills coming through later in the year.
At this point, I'd rather it not be a Republican because I'm tired of the antics of this House, but it is definitely better than an empty seat.
Post a Comment
<< Home