Talk:Texas's 22nd congressional district elections, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] DeLay's ethical issues

Before repeating the turmoil created by including all of DeLay's ethical issues in the TX-22 CD article, what is everyone's thought on including them here? I don't think they should get their own section, but we have a number of reliable sources that list not only the indictment, but the guilty pleas of DeLay staffers and concerns about how that affected DeLay's re-electability as reasons for Delay dropping out. We also have several reliable sources stating that Lampson entered the race because of DeLay's ethical lapses and perceived weakness. All in all, perhaps a section on the Primary detailing the campaigning that happened there and then another section detailing the General election race. Included in the General election section would be a subsection detailing DeLay's withdrawal and the gyrations to get him off/keep him on the ballot. A whole section is a bit much when DeLay's own article should be the place where all his ethical issues are detailed. --Bobblehead 21:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think DeLay's resignation and the subsequent scamble to get a replacement on the ballot is an integral part of the election. Consider: it is the reason the GOP has to field a write-in candidate, and most likely is the reason that Gov Perry called a special election on the same day as the open primary (it was the only way to get the name of Sekula-Gibbs actually on a ballot). I do think, however, a better subtitle than "Tom DeLay's ethical problems" is needed, however. As for your comment that whole section is a bit much when DeLay's own article should be the place where all his ethical issues are detailed, if you look at it, DeLay's ethical problems consistute only al couple of sentences in the article. The real story (which is currently reflected) is the GOP's efforts to get someone else's name on the ballot, which invovled law suits, appeals up to the Supreme Court, etc. -- Sholom 12:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why 4 republicans?

I was totally confused by this: In the special election there will be five main candidates. There will be four Republicans on ... It's probably well known why the democrats aren't candidates, but I don't know. 02:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There are 4 republicans and 0 Democrats because the special election will not have a primary and everyone that registered to be part of the special election was put on the ballot. 4 Republicans and 0 Democrats registered. Basically, the Dems didn't want to confuse voters by having Lampson on the ballot twice, while the Republicans wanted to have their names on the ballots as a reminder for voters for the write-in of the general election. --Bobblehead 05:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reordered the section and done a bit of rewording. I hope it's clearer now. John Broughton | Talk 14:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)