In a courtroom victory for US Republican Mr Tom DeLay, the judge in the campaign-finance case against the former House leader was removed last night because of previous donations to Democratic candidates and causes.
A semi-retired judge who was called in to hear the dispute, Mr CW "Bud" Duncan, ruled in DeLay's favor without comment. Mr Duncan ordered the appointment of a new judge to preside over the case.
Tom DeLay and his wife Christine arrive at court.
The ruling came after a hearing in which Mr DeLay's attorneys argued that state District Judge Bob Perkins' political donations created the appearance of bias.
Mr Perkins, a Democrat, has contributed more than $5,000 since 2000 to Democratic candidates such as Mr John Kerry and the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org.
"The public perception of Judge Perkins' activities shows him to be on opposite sides of the political fence than Tom DeLay," defence attorney Mr Dick DeGuerin argued.
Mr Perkins had declined to withdraw from the case, and prosecutor Mr Rick Reed argued at the hearing that Mr DeLay had to prove that a member of the public would have a "reasonable doubt that the judge is impartial" before Mr Perkins could be removed.
"Judges are presumed to be impartial," Mr Reed said.
Mr Perkins did not attend the hearing and did not immediately return a call for comment.
Mr DeLay had no comment as he left the courthouse. Throughout the proceedings, he sat in the front row behind his attorneys with his wife and aides. He often smiled, and occasionally chuckled when Democrats said negative things about him in their testimony.
Mr DeLay's lawyers are also seeking to have the trial moved out of Austin, citing the media attention and noting that Austin, widely perceived as a liberal college town, is "one of the last enclaves of the Democratic Party in Texas."
Judges are elected in Texas and are free to contribute to candidates and political parties. Mr DeLay's lawyers repeatedly said during the hearing that they were not accusing Perkins of doing anything wrong, but that there should not be a public perception of partiality in the case.