scotx200708.pdf
File Size:	180 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

To be entitled to mandamus relief, Castañeda was required to establish that the Green Party co-chairs had a ministerial duty to declare the candidates ineligible. See In re Williams, 470 S.W.3d 819, 821 (Tex. 2015) (holding that mandamus may issue to compel performance of a ministerial act). “An act is ministerial when the law clearly spells out the duty to be performed by the official with sufficient certainty that nothing is left to the exercise of discretion.” Id. (quoting Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791, 793 (Tex. 1991)). For the reasons explained below, Castañeda failed to prove the Election Code clearly spelled out the duty of the co-chairs to declare the Green Party candidates ineligible for their failure to pay the filing fee, and the court of appeals therefore erred in ordering their removal from the ballot.

...

In this case, the court of appeals concluded that because the Green Party candidates had not paid the filing fee, they were ineligible and the co-chairs had a statutory duty to declare them ineligible. ___ S.W.3d at ___. The court relied on section 145.003, which requires the co-chairs to review a public record presented to them concerning a candidate’s eligibility and declare a candidate ineligible if “facts indicating that the candidate is ineligible are conclusively established by another public record.” Id. at ___ (quoting TEX. ELEC. CODE § 145.003(f), (g)) (emphasis added). “In election cases . . . we are constrained in our interpretation by the principle that any statutory provision that restricts the right to hold office must be strictly construed against ineligibility.” State v. Hodges, 92 S.W.3d 489, 494–95 (Tex. 2002); see also In re Francis, 186 S.W.3d at 542 & n.34. We therefore interpret the statutory provisions at issue with a candidate’s access to the ballot in mind.

Just before the clock ran out for challenges in Wisconsin, the Democrats filed a challenge on our petitions, saying that the address listed for Angela Walker was a false address.

They didn't seem to realize that Angela moved during the petitioning window, we disclosed the fact to the Elections Commission, and they told us to clear it up when filing the petitions...which we did.

Following the rules and adhering to instructions didn't seem to matter to the Elections Commission, because they were deadlocked on whether to put us on the ballot.  The votes against putting us on the ballot came exclusively from the Democrats on the commission, who made broad insinuations that we were lying about Angela's address and didn't even allow us to introduce correcting information during the hearing.

If there was ever an example of political bigotry, that was it.

So now we're going to court.  And here's where you come in.

We're asking you to make a donation today to help cover these new legal fees.
​
We already have to raise money to cover the $15,000 retainer to defend our petitions in Pennsylvania.  Now we have the new burden of defending our petitions in Wisconsin.

Elliott Scheirman, a Libertarian running against Rep. Dan Crenshaw in Houston’s 2nd Congressional District, said the GOP suit is a “testament to the substantial growth and support” that the Libertarian Party has gained and proof that Republicans feel threatened.

“You might notice that they omitted targeting Libertarians from races without a Republican running,” Scheirman said. “This demonstrates a cherry-picked tactic to remove competition for themselves but not for Democrats…. The Green Party candidates had every right to be on the ballot, too, and Texans deserve a right to choose who they support.”