On September 15, the Texas Supreme Court issued an order putting three Green Party nominees back on the ballot. They had not paid the filing fee and a State Court of Appeals had removed them on August 19. In re the Green Party of Texas, 20-0708. Here is the order. It says a full opinion will be issued later.
The Texas Supreme Court had put the Libertarians back on the ballot last week, but on the basis that the Republican Party challenge to them had been filed too late. The fact that the Court has now put the Greens back on the ballot, even though the challenge to them was not too late, suggests that the Texas Supreme Court likely thinks the filing fee is unconstitutional.
I expected this to happen 10 days ago, per the TX Supremes’ “footnote 1” you noted. I thought it was almost guaranteed after the 14th Appeals ruling in the Dikeman suit.
HOWEVER, per discussion on your post on the TX Supremes’ ruling, Richard, along with others here in Texas, no, I still think you’re very, very much wrong on the last sentence in the post.
This is a ruling ONLY for 2020, and unless Ruth Hughs and/or Texas SoS career staff are even stupider in 2022, Green and Libertarian *nominees* who don’t pay the filing fees will get tossed. And, that’s the stupidity. HB 2504’s language was clear about *nominees* only, but SoS staff, even before Hughs became SoS, tried to apply it to *candidates.*
I want to see the full ruling here, but the full ruling 10 days ago indicates that the Supremes see the fees as VERY constitutional as long as they’re ONLY assessed on *nominees* after third-party conventions (or independents’ ballot access being certified).
https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2020/09/certain-texas-greens-could-get-back-on.html
Who will liberate 2020 Texas ???
1865-1866 Union Army/Navy folks have passed on.
The Supreme Court in the Republican v Libertarian case did not rule based on timing. They ruled that the section of code that was being used to challenge the Libertarians did not apply to convention-nominating parties. It would not have mattered when the challenge was mounted.
The SOS is under an injunction to not keep candidates off the ballot for failure to pay the filing fee at the time of filing. It would be extraordinary if another court that was unaware of the litigation could impose a action that the SOS could not undertake.
Jim Riley: I don’t understand implications of the last sentence of your comment. Can you give examples?
@WES,
The 14th COA upheld an injunction by a district court that the secretary of state can not refuse to certify a convention nominee for not paying a filing fee.
The 3rd COA told the SOS to not certify 3 Green nominees because they had not paid a filing fee.
Imagine you had not paid a filing fee. The 3rd COA tells the SOS to not put you on the ballot. But the 14th COA had told the SOS to not not certify candidates like you.
The Democrats fibbed to the 3rd COA about the litigation in the 14th COA which had been heard in June with a decision pending. The SCOTEX knows about the litigation and the 14th COA opinion issued on September 8.
I suspect that will be the basis of the SCOTEX opinion when it comes out.
TEC 141.041 required nominees of convention parties to pay a filing fee in order to be placed on the general election ballot, and ordered the SOS to adopt implementing regulations. Instead the SOS ordered applicants for consideration for nomination by convention pay the fee, and to pay it 3 months before they could possibly be nominated.
Just because you apply for a job does not mean you are an employee.
The district court (upheld by the 14th COA) has ruled the regulations by the SOS are outside the regulatory authority granted by the legislature. The legislature told the SOS to do one thing, and the SOS did something else.
The regulations are unlawful and unenforceable.
It is still pending whether the statute itself is constitutional. So far the courts have not been willing to distinguish between you spending $500 on a nice gift for your wife, and giving $500 to a robber who sticks a gun in your belly. $500 is $500, cash is fungible they reason.
In any event, the SOS has certified the 3 Green candidates and notified county election officials of this change, and gave them a friendly reminder that it is a criminal offense to knowingly leave someone off the ballot.
The Texas Supreme Court issued its per curiam opinion this Friday morning:
In re Green Party of Texas et al, No. 20-0708 (Tex. Sep. 18, 2020) (orig. proc.) (“[W]e direct the court of appeals to vacate its conditional grant of mandamus relief and we vacate the court’s order requiring a declaration that David B. Collins, Katija “Kat” Gruene, and Tommy Wakely are ineligible to appear as Green Party nominees on the November 2020 ballot”). https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1449733/200708.pdf