CCA Candidates Given Time To Correct Petition Errors By SCOTX

In a 5-3 ruling Friday (with Justice Don Willet recusing himself), the Texas Supreme Court gave incumbent Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Charles Holcomb and Dallas District Judge Robert Francis additional time to fix problems with their candidacy petitions after finding the Republican Party of Texas erred when it examined and approved the Francis and Holcomb petitions. According to the Court’s majority opinion by Justice Scott Brister, had the mistakes been pointed out by the party in time, both candidates could have easily corrected the problems.

Francis had failed to list that he was seeking “Place 8″ on 11 petition forms, while Holcomb’s petitions contained duplicate signatures. The problems had left both short of the 50 signatures needed in each of the state’s 14 appellate court districts.

The problems arose after State Rep. Terry Keel (R-Austin), the only candidate on the GOP Primary ballot for the post pending Francis and Holcomb’s corrections, challenged both of his opponents’ petitions on the basis of technical requirements in the Texas Election Code.

Francis and Holcomb ran afoul of a 2003 law that requires candidates for the state’s top two courts to submit 50 valid signatures from each of the state court of appeals districts.

Friday’s ruling is the latest in the saga which has dragged on for several weeks. In an order on January 17, the court denied Justice Holcomb’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Holcomb, who has held Place 8 on the CCA since 2000, had petitioned the Court asking them to order GOP officials to place his name on the ballot.

The ruling today was on a separate petition for a writ filed by Francis. Francis petitioned the court to vacate 250th District Court Judge John Dietz’s January 9th order requiring GOP officials to remove his name from the ballot.

Although state Republican Party officials removed Holcomb’s name from the ballot following Keel’s inquiries, they declined to remove Francis. Keel sued state Republican chairwoman Tina Benkiser. Acting on a motion by Keel, Dietz of Austin issued a temporary injunction on Jan. 9 that barred GOP officials from putting Francis on the ballot. Holcomb then sued Benkiser on Jan. 11, seeking to enjoin her from omitting his name from the ballot. But Dietz denied Holcomb’s request for an injunction in a Jan. 13 order.

According to Texas Lawyer, Several of Francis’ petitions circulated in the 12th Court of Appeals district (Tyler area) failed to specify that he was running for the Place 8 seat on the CCA. Texas Election Code §141.063(a)(4) requires that a candidate print the office and place number sought on each page of the petition. Holcomb’s petition had duplicative signatures on petitions circulated for him in the 13th Court of Appeals district (Corpus Christi area).

Randall “Buck” Wood, an attorney and a partner in Austin’s Ray, Wood & Bonilla, represented Francis in earlier legal disputes, but former Supreme Court Justice Debra Hankinson, now the principal in the Law Offices of Deborah Hankinson in Dallas, argued on Francis’ behalf before the Supreme Court. Both cases were consolidated by the court as In Re: Charles Holcomb and In Re: Robert Francis

Robert Heath a partner in Austin’s Bickerstaff, Heath, Pollan & Caroom, represented Holcomb.

Texas Lawyer reports that, during arguments Tuesday, one Supreme Court justice noted that the record in the two cases establishes that everyone makes mistakes but that the statute requires candidates who make petition mistakes to be sidelined:

“Isn’t that a rather whimsical form of democracy?” Justice Scott Brister asked at one point during the arguments.

Justice Harriet O’Neill questioned the attorneys involved in the cases whether the court can fashion a new standard that would allow courts to decide whether a candidate’s petition meets the statutory requirements without having to haul petition signers into court to question them.

Hankinson told the Court it should follow its own reasoning in 2002’s In Re: Bell to determine whether it is reasonable to block Francis from the ballot. Hankinson also urged the Supreme Court to follow its 2002 decision in In Re: Gamble to determine if it was equitable to remove Francis from the ballot for a petition defect that party officials did not notify him about until after Keel brought his challenge.

Justice Nathan Hecht, interrupting Hankinson’s argument, said nobody but the party was confused in Gamble. “This is the first case we’ve considered where there was the possibility of voter confusion,” Hecht said according to Texas Lawyer:

But Hankinson argued that there is no evidence in Francis that voters were confused. An affidavit from an individual who circulated petitions for Francis indicates that voters were told which place Francis was seeking, she told the court.

Hankinson also noted that Keel discovered the defect in Francis’ petition on Dec. 30, 2005, but did not notify the party until shortly before the filing deadline on Jan. 2.

Donna Davidson, attorney for the Republican Party and Benkiser, told the court that the party notified Francis in a Jan. 6 letter that it had made the determination to certify him for the ballot.

Patrick Keel an Austin attorney, who represents his brother, Terry, in the case, argued that Gamble does not apply in Francis because there is no evidence that the party failed to meet its duty.

Keel also contended that the Gamble decision is problematic and will open the courts to continuous petition challenges during each election cycle. The last thing the Supreme Court or trial courts want is to be wrestling with these Election Code challenges, he said.

“I think you’ve opened Pandora’s box,” Keel told the court.

Links:

Court’s Ruling; Dissent

Cross Posted to PolState.com

RELATED ADS:

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It