Friday, June 09, 2006

Dems can't make up their minds on keeping someone on a ballot

From the fishwrap in "Thann Franthithco":
The Texas Democratic Party won a temporary restraining order Thursday blocking the process that would name a replacement for Republican U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on the November ballot.
State District Judge Darlene Byrne ordered Texas GOP Chairwoman Tina Benkiser not to convene party officials to decide on DeLay's replacement until after a June 22 court hearing.

Democrats are trying to keep DeLay's name on the ballot, which would also keep his legal problems in front of voters. DeLay leaves Congress on Friday.
Democrats want to KEEP DeLay on the ballot, arguing that the law demands such. I'm no legal expert, but I do know leftist hypocrisy when I smell it.

Flashback to 2002. Recall that Bob Torrecelli (D-NJ) was in the middle of a Senate race with Republican Doug Forrester, and "The Torch" had all sorts of legal and ethical problems that caused his popularity to the point where New Jersey was actually going to vote for a Republican replacement!

"Torch" wanted to drop out of the race, which is his prerogative. However, the Dems wanted to replace Torch's name on the ballot with the retired and popular Frank "the Laut" Lautenburg. The problem, though, was that state law clearly and unambiguously stated what the deadline was for making ballot name changes:
The New Jersey statute at issue says two things: First, it states that "in the event of a vacancy, howsoever caused, among candidates nominated at primaries, which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election, . . . a candidate shall be selected" by the state party leadership. Second, it says that "a selection made pursuant to this section shall be made no later than the 48th day preceding the date of the general election."

Torricelli announced that he was dropping out later than 51 days before the general election. His replacement, Lautenberg, was named later than 48 days before the general election.

Accordingly, Republicans argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court that both the front end and the back end timelines of the statute were violated by the Democrats' request to put Lautenberg on the ballot.
Dems sued, and an activist court simply ignored the law and allowed the ballot change. The NJSC didn't rule that the law was unconstitutional...they just said "Screw it." The Laut got on the ballot, and he won the seat.

Flashback again to 2002. This time, we focus on the MN Senate race, where the tragic death of incumbent Democrat Paul Wellstone resulted in a macabre leftist pep rally at his funeral (I wonder if that was one of those...what do you call them? Oh, right! A "political funeral"!). The Dems dug up and propped up the fossil, Walter "One State" Mondale to run in Wellstone's place.

Dems wanted absentee ballots mailed out to EVERYONE, whether they had already voted or not (which is expressly contrary to the requirements of Minnesota election law). This would have opened the door for multiple voting, i.e. voter fraud, an art that Dems have perfected over the decades. The MN Supreme Court allowed "One State" to replace Wellstone, but said that only absentee voters who had already voted and asked to change their votes (in light of the Wellstone death) could get new ballots. Hell, some Dems wanted all absentee Wellstone votes to automatically go to Mondale! Fortunately, "One State" suffered his first defeat in his home state.

The point is, though, that Democrats have a history of ignoring elections laws that inconvenience them and that they feel might (a) prevent a viable alternative to the voters and (b) get in the way of their insatiable thirst for power. Now with DeLay, they seem to want to embrace the elections laws they have challeneged and ignored for years?

You'll have to forgive me for seeing them as the disingenuous, hypocritical elitist bastards that they clearly are.