Key Excerpts from Federal Judge Ruling on DeLay

Read the Full Decision Here

From the Judgment
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs [Texas Democratic Party] and that Defendant [Tina Benkiser, in her capacity as Chairwoman of the Republican Party of Texas] and anyone acting in concert with her, on her behalf, or at her direction is permanently enjoined and restrained from:

1. Declaring Tom DeLay ineligible as the Republican candidate for the general election ballot for the United State House of Representatives from the Texas District 22 to be held on November 7, 2006;
2. Certifying to the Texas Secretary of State any candidate other than Tom DeLay to appear on the ballot in the 2006 general election as the Republican Party nominee for the United State House of Representatives from the Texas District 22; and
3. Certify to the Texas Secretary of State that Tom DeLay is ineligible to be the Republican Party nominee for the United State House of Representatives from the Texas District 22, or if she already done so, Defendant is enjoined to withdraw any certification that Tom DeLay is ineligible.

IT IS FURTER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Tom DeLay is not ineligible to be the Republican Party nominee for the United State House of Representatives from the Texas District 22 and that any previous declaration of ineligibility made Benkiser is void.” (United States District Court, TDP v Tina Benkiser Chairwoman of TRP, June 26, 2006, pages 1-2)

From the Analysis
“There is simply no evidence before the Court that DeLay is ineligible under the United States Constitution and certainly no conclusive evidence that DeLay will be ineligible on November 7, 2006.” (United States District Court, TDP v Tina Benkiser Chairwoman of TRP, June 26, 2006 page 9)

From the Conclusion
“Political acumen, strategy, and manufactured evidence, even combined with sound policy in mind, cannot override the Constitution.  The evidence presented in this case provides no basis for Benkiser’s declaration that Tom DeLay was not eligible to remain the nominee of the republican Party under state or federal law… there is no evidence that DeLay will still be living in Virginia tomorrow, let alone on November 7, 2006, the only day that matters under the Qualification Clause of the United States Constitution. DeLay himself testified that he does not know what will happen with his life in November, stating only that he plans to continue living in Virginia ‘indefinitely.’

“The Constitution ‘nullifies sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes’ of infringing on constitutional protections.’ U.S. Term Limits, Inc v Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 829 (1995)(quoting Lane v Wilson, 307 U.S. 268,275 (1939))…

DeLay was chosen as the Republican nominee by the voters in the Republican primary, and he is still eligible to be the party’s nominee.  He may, of course, withdraw as is his right, but neither political parties, state legislatures, secretaries of state, nor the federal courts may rewrite the United States Constitution.” (United States District Court, TDP v Tina Benkiser Chairwoman of TRP, June 26, 2006 page 15) (emphasis added)” (United States District Court, TDP v Tina Benkiser Chairwoman of TRP, June 26, 2006 page 15)

The Supreme Court Rules on Redistricting
Supreme Court finds CD 23 invalid under the Voting Rights Act
Court upholds partisan gerrymandering and mid-decade redistricting
Court fails to protect the voting rights of the African Americans in North Texas

Read the Full Opinion Here (Warning Large File)

Read Justice Kennedy's Opinion for the Court
Read the Syllabus Here
Read Justice Stevens' Opinion
Read Justice Souter's Opinion
Read Justice Breyer's Opinion
Read Justice Robert's Opinion
Read Justice Scalia's Opinion

See the pre-DeLay map
See the Current Map

See the Current CD 23
See the Current CD 25