On December 2, a state trial court in Austin, Texas, enjoined the new Texas requirement that candidates who seek the nomination of a party that nominates by convention must pay a filing fee. Dikeman v Hughs, 11th jud. district, 2019-76841. The decision depends partly on the Texas State Constitution.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Shocking -that there are ANY election law *rights* in ANY ex-slave State regime.
Will the trial court be purged ???
She is elected in a partisan election. She is a Democrat.
if the fee had no reasonable government purpose, it imposes a unjust burden on a liberty interest.
By extension, surely this will affect the federal case over #HB2504 as well. Indeed, when I saw the header in my blogroll, at first, I thought this WAS some update on that. That said, it undercuts the federal district judge’s refusal to enjoin.
How many $$$ billions for NON-election stuff in the Texas regime ???
IE — Elections – esp for State legislatures — one of the very few things that the States MUST do —
to have a sham/fraud appearance of Democracy- 4-4.
—
PR and AppV and TOTSOP.
Also – 14-2 State offices.
One thing I find interesting is that this was a Libertarians-only filing, contra the federal suit and contra Harris County being the bastion of Texas Greens.
It was helpful that the case was entirely about the filing fee and the SOS maladministration of the statute.
The federal case had been in preparation for some time before it was actually filed this past summer. The filing fee claim was stuck in at the last minute, and before it was known that the SOS had a reading comprehension problem. While scheduling for the full case was going on, they had to attempt to get an injunction for the new filing fee.
The strongest part of the state case is that the Secretary of State had simply misread the statute. Interpreting a constitutional claim is trickier.
The plaintiffs should have also added a claim under Texas Constitution Article I Section 17.
The injunction is a bit unclear when it refers to applications for nomination. SOS Hughs has no authority to accept such an application. But the injunction says she can’t refuse to accept or reject applications.
In fact she should return any applications received. She should also be required to correct the candidate information on the SOS website, and the filing period extended.
The SOS incorrectly asserts that there is an initial application date for convention-nominated candidates.
There is an implication that the SOS has implemented TEC 181.032(c) added as part of HB 2628. This would extend electronic filing of candidate notices to convention-nominating parties. This is the basis by which the Secretary of State publicizes and promotes candidacies of primary-nominating parties.
Jim, all good points, which is why federal district judge Roger Pitman is an idiot. A preliminary injunction isn’t really extraordinary when
A: There’s a hard calendar deadline and
B: As you note, SOS is clearly misreading HB 2504.
@SG,
The federal lawsuit was being prepared for many months and concerns the entire system, including independent candidates and qualification of new minor parties. The filing fee was added at the last minute, you can see how it is sort of an add on in the complaint. Then the SOS compounded the problem by misreading the clear language of the statute. Since imposition of the fee was imminent, the federal litigants had to seek an injunction. It may have confused the judge.
Had you wanted to implement a filing fee, you would have added to TEC 181 and 182, and made it payable to the party for purposes of funding nominating conventions. The state could add in an amount consistent with their subsidy of major parties.
The real solution of course is to do away with partisan nominations, and privately administered primaries. Texas already has the statutory structure used for special elections.
The hearing in the federal case was also concerning standing, etc. I don’t know how much time was spent on the filing fee.
The SOS brief glibly switches from “nominee” to “applicant” and Pitman accepted the reading.
The Green Party might not be wholly opposed to HB 2504 due to the New Green Deal provision, which potentially saves them several $100,000 in an attempt to qualify.
How about having Judge JR provide direct free or paid advice for plaintiffs about any Complaint ???
[unless plaintiffs are looking at BAN every second]
ANY lawyers and judges in TX able to detect EQUAL in 14-1 ???
@DR,
Does 14-1 require equal expenditures by police for protection from crime, or may they discriminate based on vulnerability of victims (e.g. elderly, children) or prevalence of crime in a neighborhood?
Too many crimes to count.
Very limited number of INDIVIDUAL candidates for limited public offices.
ONE subject at a time.
If/when there is REAL Democracy via PR, then crime stuff will be dealt with a whole lot more.
—-
Related matter – the usual suspects in rotted Detroit are claiming some sort of 14-1 right to get educated brains via the publik skooools – op pending.
All fees and petitions for candidates to access the ballot serve to censor the choices open to voters. All ballot access laws should be abolished as a tool to rig elections and suppress voter rights.
Bit more –
must have public elections.
NO must have 100 pct 24/7 public police protection
— one more reason for 2 Amdt – KILL attacker felons 24/7 – home invaders, robbers, nutcases, etc.