Those Rich Democrats and Their Evil 527s

I took some time off work a couple of weeks ago to, among other things, help move Darrell back home from the dorm. (Man, it is good to have that young man back home, if only for the summer.)

Today I finally got around to catching up on all the non-critical (i.e., non-work-related) email from that week, and I came across this jewel from the McCain campaign:

Our Party needs to pull together, and we need to do it now.

Never in memory have the Democrats, liberal special interests groups, labor unions and unregulated "527" soft-money groups come together with so much money and so much determination toward one purpose: Defeating Republicans.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it somewhat ironic that the man who helped empower these 527 groups (via the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002) is now complaining that the Democrats are using it against him?

To make this plea for money even more interesting, clicking on any of the numerous "Donate Now!" links in the email takes you to this web site, which begins:

Grassroots Republicans like you will play a crucial role in the 2008 presidential election. Our Party leaders and candidates are counting on your active support of Victory 2008 to make sure our Party has the resources to reach out to voters and promote our positive, conservative agenda.

Although I don't always agree with former Congressman Tom DeLay, he points out quite effectively that Senator McCain's agenda is not necessarily known for being all that conservative:

Another Delay on Texas Ballots

Or more accurately, the same DeLay. And his name is Tom.

The Texas Republican Party cannot replace former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on November's ballot, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks ruled today.

The Texas Democratic Party sued to keep the indicted Sugar Land Republican on the ballot because party officials believed that their candidate Nick Lampson could more easily defeat DeLay instead of a GOP replacement.

Sparks' order prevents state Republican Chairwoman Tina Benkiser from completing the process of naming a DeLay successor.

The entire issue revolves around state and federal election laws, and just exactly where (and when) DeLay's legal residency is established. According to the Statesman, "Under state law, a political party cannot replace a nominee who resigns in mid-election."

State Republicans argued that DeLay had changed his legal residency to Virginia, making him ineligible to run and bypassing the above prohibition, but District Judge Sparks ruled that the U.S. Constitution only specifies the residency requirement as of election day. (Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.") And since that date is still in the future, no legal ruling regarding DeLay's residency as of this November's election day can be determined at this time.

Of course, it didn't help that the DeLay family still owns and maintains their "former residence" in Sugar Land, Texas.

Lawyers for the Democratic Party ... noted that DeLay testified his wife was still living at their Sugar Land residence and that they subpoenaed him for his court appearance at that house.

D'oh! Note to DeLay: in the future, please disregard all mail and other correspondence received at former address.

The state Republican Party is expected to appeal Sparks' decision to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, but if that fails then DeLay will remain on the ballot this November. In that case, let's hope he will actually put forth some effort to campaign. It likely would not take too great an effort for the former House majority leader to beat Democrat Nick Lampson (who does not even live in the disputed House district), but an indifferent showing might tip the scales in the Democrat's favor.

Back to the Drawing Board

The U.S. Supreme Court today upheld all but one of the changes made back in 2003 to Texas' congressional districting map.

By a 5-4 vote, the court said the 23rd District in Southwest Texas, represented by Republican Henry Bonilla, was unconstitutional because its design violated the rights of some Hispanic voters. Reshaping the district, a task that apparently now is assigned to federal court in Texas, would force a change in at least one other neighboring district.

But the high court ruling preserved the other districts in the Houston area and elsewhere that were created by the Texas Legislature in 2003. This includes a Dallas-area district whose constitutionality was challenged by black voters.

The "one other neighboring district" that will likely require changes is the 25th District, represented by Democrat Lloyd Doggett of Austin and which currently stretches from Austin to the Mexican border.

I found it interesting that the Houston Chronicle and the Austin-American Statesman seemed to look at the court's decision in two very different lights, as reflected by their headlines:

Chronicle: Most of Texas' redistricting map upheld
Statesman: Supreme Court throws out part of Texas congressional map

Both papers seemed to agree on one point, though: that former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was the evil engineer behind the malevolent redistricting act. The Austin reporter spent almost a quarter of his article on the charges against DeLay, and seemed almost gleeful in his subtle reminder that the redistricting move "indirectly led to [DeLay's] political demise."