Rep. Tom DeLay and his attorneys succeeding in removing the sitting judge in his trial. The rationale his attorneys argued was that Judge Perkins' contributions to democratic candidates (that's allowed here in Texas) might create the appearance of a bias. His attorneys are still trying to get the trial moved from Austin, "one of the last enclaves of the Democratic Party in Texas."
I can't say that I disagree with the removal of the judge. Even though judges are supposed to be impartial, we know that in practicality, it's mostly impossible to be completely impartial (I commented on this yesterday), and a judge who contributed to MoveOn.Org presiding over a case in which Tom DeLay is a defendant is rather similar to an NRA member judge presiding over a Brady case.
I don't buy the argument that the trial needs to be removed from Austin though, especially if the rationale given is taht it's "one of the last enclaves of the Democratic Party in Texas." If the premise is that he wouldn't get a fair trial because Austin is liberal, then how could they reasonably argue that he'd get a fair trial in any Republican-controlled county? Reading between the lines, it appears what he wants is to be in a place where his acquittal is closer to a guarantee, whether he's guilty or not. I do think, however, that whatever the outcome of his trial, he's veering very close to OJ/Jacko territory, where he'll be viewed as guilty in the court of public opinion regardless of his culpability in the instant case.