http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4061837.html

Follow the law: Inappropriate efforts to influence federal appellate
judges in DeLay ballot case taint judicial process.

IN an evenhanded decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld most of the
Texas redistricting plan but invalidated one district that illegally
reduced Hispanic voting power. The ruling displayed the court's ability
to mete out impartial justice in a politically charged case.
Unfortunately, some politicians seem to think an appeal to partisanship
can influence how the federal courts rule.

A blatant example can be seen on the Harris County Republican Party Web
site. It invites viewers to send a petition to the 5th Circuit Court of
Appeals jurists who will decide whether former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay must
remain on the November ballot as the GOP candidate for the 22nd
District. The petition declares, "Each day that goes by with Democrats
perverting the process and denying the public their choice of
candidates is a travesty of justice. This deliberate subversion
undermines the will of the people and sets a horrible precedent for
future elections."

The petition goes on to urge the justices to remove an injunction
issued by U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, a Republican appointee,
keeping DeLay on the ballot. It also asks the court to declare the
Republican ballot position officially vacant and allow district voters
a fair choice of candidates.

The notion that judges can be influenced by a partisan petition is
repugnant to the concept of an independent judiciary. The state GOP is
represented in its appeal by a team of qualified lawyers. If Harris
County party officials succeeded in affecting the outcome through such
tactics, it would constitute a real subversion of the system and a
truly horrible precedent for future litigation.

Equally misguided is Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's decision to
intervene in the case. He has every right to file a friend of the court
brief, but his stated reason shows a slight grasp of the particulars of
the case.

A spokeswoman for Abbott said Sparks had declared a portion of the
Texas election code unconstitutional. In fact, neither the Democratic
Party that sued to keep DeLay on the ballot nor the judge made that
argument.

The judge actually ruled that the U.S. Constitution sets eligibility
for congressional candidates and that a candidate's residency can be
determined only on Election Day. GOP officials had declared DeLay
ineligible after he won the party primary but moved his official
residence to Virginia. DeLay and his wife continue to maintain their
house in Sugar Land.

For the Texas attorney general to use the resources of the state to
help his party win a favorable court judgment would be an intolerable
conflict of interest. If Abbott does file a brief, it should recognize
that Texas law prevents parties from replacing unpopular primary
winners such as DeLay with stronger candidates — exactly what the state
GOP is trying to do.

The credibility of American justice rests on judges' impartiality, both
real and perceived. Attempts to influence the outcome — whether through
petitions or briefs filed by elected officials seeking partisan
advantage — only damage that credibility.


Brought to you by the HoustonChronicle.com