Bait and Switch

I was pleased to see that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Democrats' contention that the Texas Republican Party could not simply replace Tom DeLay on the ballot after the primary. This made me happy for two reasons: first, it was the correct legal decision, and, second, it was reassuring that the most conservative (i.e. Republican-appointed) federal appellate court in the nation will apply the rule of law even when it runs counter to their own party.

If you didn't catch the explanation in your newspaper, the 5th Circuit, upholding a federal district court ruling, pointed out that Tom DeLay ran as the GOP's candidate in the primary. By allowing party leaders to simply replace him on the ballot, after the primary, would be to deprive voters of a role in the election. The Court envisioned a party purposely running one candidate in a primary, knowing they would replace him in the general election with whomever they wanted.

In fact, that's exactly what happened in the DeLay case. There was nothing about his unethical activities and legal problems that Tom DeLay didn't already know before the party's primary. But what he, and GOP leaders, also knew, is that the hard-care Republicans in his district would renominate him anyway. What worried them is that the general election voters wouldn't vote for a tarnished candidate. Thus, the plan was hatched to run DeLay among the party faithful in the primary and then switch him out for a more-palatable general election candidate later. It was a classic "bait-and-switch" tactic, and, to its credit, the court said "No."

It does a lawyer proud to see such a thing.