On February 1, the Texas Supreme Court stayed a ruling of a trial court that would have removed a Republican candidate from the March 1 primary ballot. Rachel Leal-Hudson needed 250 signatures. She submitted 530 and there were enough valid. However, her primary opponent sued to remove her on the grounds that ten signatures had been witnessed by the candidate’s husband, and yet the candidate had signed the petition form indicating she had been the witness. The trial court removed her from the ballot, but the Texas Supreme Court disagreed and kept her on the ballot. See this story.
In Texas partisan candidates file with the party chair. The party chair may have recruited the candidates, helped them raise funds, and circulate petitions.
But as administrators of primaries, they also receive applications and review them. They are not responsible for going beyond the four corners of the application, and don’t have to investigate petitions unless challenged.
So in this case, the plaintiff sued the Harris County Republican Chair Cindy Siegel claiming she failed to execute her ministerial duty as a a quasi-state official.
Now what is weird that a private investigator called up the signers and asked if they had signed the petitions. The signer probably said they signed at church, and might have said something about Leal-Hudson being a member. The investigator then asked who had circulated the petition, and were told it was a man, the candidate’s husband.
I don’t know if there was some informant, or that they went through the entire petition.
Ketterman did not have affidavits, but did issue subpoenas for the signers to appear in district court. Quite odd for a case like this, there was a jury trial.
The district court apparently ruled that because some of the petitions were fraudulent, that the entire application was fraudulent because the candidate had knowledge of the fraud.