Yanez Amends Application

We have just received word that Appeals Court Justice Linda Yanez has supplemented her application to correct the defects in signatures. From a letter from Susan Hays, Yanez’s counsel:

The Yañez campaign appreciates that certain defects have been brought to our attention. Baron’s letter only specified particular, facial defects in the signatures from the Houston districts (1 and 14), and also makes vague allusions to defects in districts 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12.

Despite only having 48 hours’ notice over the New Year’s holiday, the Yañez campaign has supplemented the application to cure any defects. As you know, candidates for party nomination to the high courts are required to have 50 signatures from registered voters from each of 14 courts of appeals districts. Since the two Houston districts overlap, a candidate must have 100 signatures from those counties. As of 6 p.m. today, her application contains more than 900 signatures with verified signatures in the following amounts from those questioned districts:

Houston (1&14) – 108

San Antonio (4) – 82

Texarkana (6) – 65

Amarillo (7) – 68

Waco (10) – 79

Eastland (11) – 81

Tyler (12) – 79

You will note that Yanez has amended her application. And, according to Hays, Yanez’s counsel, that is allowable under In re Francis, a case from 2006 which resulted from petition defects on Court of Criminal Appeals races last cycle:

As you know, last election cycle the Texas Supreme Court confirmed prior case law disavowing any technical traps to ballot access. See In re Francis, 186 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2006). The Francis court held that the Election Code must be interpreted “as a tool rather than a trap” so that political “opponents would no longer be able to win elections by default by pointing out defects only after it is too late to correct them.” Id. at 541.

The Yañez campaign appreciates that certain defects have been brought to our attention. Baron’s letter only specified particular, facial defects in the signatures from the Houston districts (1 and 14), and also makes vague allusions to defects in districts 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12.

Despite only having 48 hours’ notice over the New Year’s holiday, the Yañez campaign has supplemented the application to cure any defects. As you know, candidates for party nomination to the high courts are required to have 50 signatures from registered voters from each of 14 courts of appeals districts. Since the two Houston districts overlap, a candidate must have 100 signatures from those counties. As of 6 p.m. today, her application contains more than 900 signatures with verified signatures in the following amounts from those questioned districts:

[...]

Justice Yañez filed her ballot application and petitions on the first day of filing December 3rd but was not informed of these defects until December 31. While, under the Francis decision Justice Yañez legally has many more days to correct the filing, we are happy to report that we have corrected it in 48 hours, even with the holiday.

It is my understanding now that all that is lacking is for the Party Chair to certify the applications. Whether or not Ritchie will certify the petitions with the amendments is anyone’s guess, but I suspect he would, meaning anything else will have to be hashed out in court.

Bookmark It