The Texas Election Code does not state explicitly that one person cannot run for more than one office in the same election—or, at least, I have not found such language. However, no one person may serve in two elected offices in the event of winning both races. Hypothetically, if gruene could be elected to both positions in the event of a sudden Green Wave, she should not take a chance on a dual victory.
Possibly Moot Point
This is the paragraph where we remind readers that gruene is not officially on the ballot for either position, despite being nominated for both. She did not pay the new HB 2504 filing fees to run, nor did she submit petition signatures in lieu of the fees. The fee provision for candidates irrespective of party is in legal limbo, pending the lawsuits filed in hopes of overturning it.
If the SOS wins the lawsuits, the Green Party will have just one entry on nearly all ballots in Texas: the presidential ticket. If the plaintiffs win, there will be three additional candidates for statewide races: Collins for US Senate, gruene for RRC, and Charles Waterbury for a position on the State Supreme Court. Having just the presidential tandem on the ballot would not look good, buttressing as it does the widespread myth that the Green Party just emerges from the fog every four years to run for president and doesn't even try for local offices.
Palmer had some positive takeaways from her recent conversation with the Secretary of State's Office, in which she provided the names of general election nominees. Her contact at SOS did raise the question of gruene appearing in two races, but said nothing about candidates not having paid their fees. That, Palmer noted, would bode well for GPTX having more than just Hal J. Ridley, Jr., in Congressional District 36 (southeastern corner of the state) and Brody Mulligan in State House District 92 (Tarrant County) along with the nominees for President and VP.
Palmer's update on the litigation was the first of many items on last night's agenda, but the only one truly worth reporting. Nevertheless, I should bring up an additional matter. Toward the meeting's end, there was also some discussion of a challenge, by an unnamed delegate to the state convention, leveled against the Proportional Approval Voting math that awarded 20 of Texas's 26 delegates to Howie Hawkins for president.
New GPTX Treasurer Travis Christal, who manages the Hawkins/(Angela) Walker campaign in Texas, took umbrage to the challenge as one who knows him might expect. The challenger may be one who vocally opposes nominating Hawkins, one who just wants to sow discord within GPTX (as if there isn't already enough), or just a stickler for fairness in the process. This blogger left the meeting at 9:30, half an hour after it should have ended but before the topic reached any sort of resolution.
As with the Sanders delegates who took the Democratic National Committee to court for putting its gigantic thumb on the scales for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary contest, the challenge could lead to legal action. This blogger is of the opinion that, if the challenger really wants to take GPTX to court for following its own Bylaws (see Articles II and VII), said challenger needs to get a life ASAP. The fractional distribution of votes is difficult for even intelligent people to grasp, but a thorough examination of the Center for Election Science Excel workbook used to perform the calculations shows that it all adds up.