Texas Supreme Court Explains Why it Ordered Green Party Candidates Restored to Ballot

On September 18, the Texas Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in In re The Green Party of Texas, 20-0708. The 7-page opinion explains why it ordered three Green Party candidates back on the ballot, even though they had not paid a filing fee. The State Court of Appeals had removed them.

The Texas Supreme Court opinion points out that there is no deadline in the law for minor party candidates nominated at a state convention to pay the filing fee. This appears to be a flaw in the law, which was passed in great haste in 2019. So when the State Court of Appeals removed the Greens, there was no legal basis to do so, because theoretically they might still have paid the fee. The Texas Supreme Court says the Secretary of State’s regulation, saying the fee should have been paid when the candidates first indicated an interest in being nominated, is not supported by the law. That deadline is in December of the year before the election.

The Texas Supreme Court also says that if some jurisdictions have already printed ballots with the names of the Green Party nominees, then those ballots must be reprinted. The Opinion says, “We recognize that changes to the ballot at this late point in the process will require extra time and resources to be expended by our local election officials. But a candidate’s access to the ballot is an important value to our democracy. And an added expense is not a sufficient justification to deny these candidates that access.” Thanks to Art DiBianca for the link.


Comments

Texas Supreme Court Explains Why it Ordered Green Party Candidates Restored to Ballot — 15 Comments

  1. The Secretary of State’s office can’t fix this oversight. Updated legislation will be required. We will be ready!

  2. ALL minor party and independents stuff is a side show distraction for the ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander gangsters.

    1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4

    Generally act only after the courts issue HAMMER ops/orders.

    RW BAN super-database has the many time gaps between court actions and legis actions.

  3. So, the law is unenforceable because it was poorly written? No problem. We will just make the law up as needed.

  4. make up *law* = TYRANTS and TYRANNY

    Too many New Age exec/judic TYRANTS to count —

    esp due to SCOTUS lawless tyrant hacks — making up all sorts of UNCON *law* in their ops.

  5. My brother recommended I would possibly like this website.
    He was totally right. This submit truly made my day.

    You cann’t believe just how much time I had spent for this info!
    Thanks!

  6. Thanks for this good news. But one thing . . . doesn’t the opinion say that ballots printed withOUT the names of these three Greens must be reprinted?

  7. TEC 141.041 was poorly written, and then the bill HB 2504 passed as a vehicle to get the Green Party back on the ballot. The two provision of HB 2504 are independent and severable.

    Rather than specify in detail how to implement the filing fee, the bill told the SOS to adopt implementing regulations.

    The SOS posted some “guidelines” on the SOS website. They really aren’t close to being regulations in any formal sense of the word.

    The SOS misinterpreted TEC 141.041 as applying to applicants for nomination, rather than the actual nominees. In Texas, candidates for nomination at a convention, must make an application for consideration, just as a candidate applying for a place on a primary ballot.

    If there are multiple applicants only one can be nominated. And because Libertarians use NOTA, even an unopposed applicant might not be nominated.

    The SOS set a deadline for paying the filing fee of December 9. TEC 141.041 and the SOS guidelines were being litigated in district court, which issued a TRO against the fees. The SOS appealed, which had the effect of staying the TRO but not before dozens of Libertarians plus a few Greens had filed. This case was heard by the 14th COA in June but no opinion had been issued.

    Just before the deadline to remove ineligible candidates, the Democrats filed suit against the Green candidates in the 3rd COA. It is not clear if the Greens had responded before the court ruled (on a party line vote). The Democrats fibbed about the ongoing litigation in the 14th COA. The 3rd COA ordered the Green candidates removed from the ballots.

    The Republicans decided to copycat the Democrats and attack the Libertarians but failed.

    Meanwhile the 14th COA ruled that the SOS had acted ultra vires, outside the law, ruling in effect that the guidelines were legally void. Thus it is essentially the case that the Green nominees were removed for failing to comply with non-existent regulations.

    One would hope that the SOS, who oversees the Texas Register and the Texas Administrative Code and the overall process of state agencies promulgating regulations would do better than slapping out some poorly “thought” out ideas on its website.l

  8. Conceivably, the SOS could draft new regulations, but certainly not for 2020.

    But I suspect that TEC 141.041 will be repealed next year.

  9. Some election officials had submitted amicus briefs that it was impossible to update the ballots, some of which had been printed, and even mailed, while others were in the process of being proofed or machine tested.

    The SOS assured the SCOTEX that it was possible and legally required if the 3rd COA had acted improperly.

    This is likely why the court issued its order on the 15th before issuing its opinion on the 18th.

    The SOS has amended its certification to include the three Green candidates were included and notified county election officials, and gave a friendly reminder that it is a crime to knowingly leave candidates off a ballot.

    It might be worthwhile to actually check that each county is doing this.

  10. This is the perfect webpage for anyone who wants to find out about this topic.
    You realize so much its almost tough to argue with you (not that I really would want to…HaHa).
    You definitely put a fresh spin on a topic that’s been discussed for ages.
    Great stuff, just excellent!

  11. I pay a quick visit everyday a few web pages and sites
    to read content, but this website offers quality based writing.

  12. I used to be recommended this web site by means of my cousin. I’m no longer sure whether
    this put up is written via him as no one else recognize such exact approximately my trouble.
    You are wonderful! Thanks!

  13. Get out of my head Google. I already told you that you are not allowed to contact me or imitate me. You will be punished more the more you do this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.