The Texas Writ Mandamus form is a crucial legal document used to request a higher court, typically the Supreme Court, to order a lower court or government official to perform a mandatory duty correctly that has not been fulfilled. It is an extraordinary remedy, only utilized in exceptional cases where there is no other adequate legal remedy. This form plays a pivotal role in ensuring that justice is served promptly and efficiently. If you are in need of demanding judicial action or governmental intervention, consider filling out the Texas Writ of Mandamus form. Click the button below to learn more and get started.
In a situation where legal recourse becomes imperative, documents like the Texas Writ of Mandamus form emerge as critical tools to address and expedite legal matters. Within the intricate legal framework of Texas, the case presented through Ms. Candace Taylor against the Secretary of State of Texas, Hope Andrade, and Steve Raborn, the Tarrant County Elections Administrator, unfolds a scenario that underscores the significance of timely judicial interventions in electoral disputes. Ms. Taylor's Original Petition and Emergency Application for Writ of Mandamus and Injunctive Relief elucidates a pressing quest for justice, coinciding with the rigid timeliness of electoral processes. This document not only captures Ms. Taylor's legal challenge following the rejection of her candidacy for a judicial position but also highlights the procedural and jurisdictional prerequisites requisite for such a legal endeavor. With Ms. Taylor's qualifications and the unforeseen vacancy in the 432nd District Court following a candidate's tragic demise at its core, the petition paints a detailed narrative that accentuates the complexities of electoral law, candidacy qualifications, and the pivotal role of expedited hearings in the realm of election-related legal battles. Through this lens, the pursuit of a writ of mandandus becomes a testament to the litigation strategies deployed within the Texas legal system to address emergent issues that bear significant implications on electoral outcomes.
Cause No. _______
CANDACE TAYLOR,
§ IN THE SUPREME COURT
§
Plaintiff
vs.
SECRETARY OF STATE OF
OF
TEXAS HOPE ANDRADE
and TARRANT COUNTY
ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR
STEVE RABORN,
Defendants
§ THE STATE OF TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION, EMERGENCY APPLICATION
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW Plaintiff Candace Taylor (“Ms. Taylor”) and files this Original Petition and Emergency Application for Writ of Mandamus and Injunctive Relief against Defendants, Hope Andrade, Secretary of State of Texas (the “Secretary”) and Steve Raborn, Tarrant County Elections Administrator (“Raborn”) (the Secretary and Raborn may be referred to collectively as “Defendants”), and for same show the Court as follows:
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FORPage 1
WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
I.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE; SERVICE OF PROCESS
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to TEXAS ELECTION CODE §§ 273.061 and 273.081. The Secretary of State of Texas may be served with process at 1100 Congress, Capitol Bldg., Room 1E.8, Austin, Texas 78701. Steve Raborn, Tarrant County Elections Administrator, may be served with process at 2700 Premier Street, Fort Worth 76111.
II.
REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING
Because of the upcoming deadlines relating to candidacy for the upcoming general election, scheduled for November 2, 2010, the necessity of resolving the issues that are the subject of this Petition is urgent, and Plaintiff requests that the Court set this matter for hearing on an expedited basis. The deadline for submitting a candidate’s name for inclusion on the ballot is August 20, 2010, which Plaintiff Candace Taylor has already done, as evidenced by the letter from the Secretary of State, rejecting Ms. Taylor’s application, which is attached to this Petition as Exhibit A. The deadline for certifying the ballot is on or about August 24, 2010, a date after which Defendant's will argue adding a candidate to the ballot for the 432nd District Court will be moot.
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FORPage 2
III.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1.Plaintiff Candace Taylor is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Texas, having been granted her law license in 1996. Ms. Taylor meets all of the qualifications for a candidate for public office pursuant to Section 141.001 of the TEXAS ELECTION CODE.
2.In 2009, a new criminal district court was created in Tarrant County, Texas. This was the 432nd District Court, and the initial Judge of the court was Ruben Gonzalez, who was appointed by Governor Rick Perry in accordance with Texas law governing the filling of judicial posts in newly created courts between elections. Judge Gonzalez’s term is set to expire, and the position will be filled by the winning candidate in the general election this coming November.
3.In March 2010, the Republican and Democratic Parties each held primary elections to determine the parties’ respective choices for candidates to be placed on the ballot for the general election scheduled for November 2, 2010 (hereinafter, the “General Election”). Ms. Taylor was aware that the Republican nominee for the 432nd District Court was Tom Zachry, whom Ms. Taylor believed was a highly qualified candidate, and that Mr. Zachry would win the primary election against Judge Gonzalez. Ms. Taylor, and the Democratic Party generally, were satisfied that Mr. Zachry would be an excellent judge, which was
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FORPage 3
an important reason why the Democratic Party chose not to run a candidate in
the primary elections for the 432nd District Court.
4.Mr. Zachry did, in fact, defeat Judge Gonzalez in the primary, and was to have been the Republican candidate for the judgeship for the 432nd Court in the General Election. The Democrats and Ms. Taylor, not wanting to run a candidate against Mr. Zachry, were content for Mr. Zachry to run unopposed in the general election.
5.Unfortunately, Mr. Zachry was killed in a tragic boating accident shortly after the primary election. On March 19, 2010, Mr. Zachry’s boat capsized on Aquilla Lake, and Mr. Zachry was subsequently pronounced dead.
Mr. Zachry’s death created a vacancy in the nominees for judge of the 432nd District Court in the November General Election. As Mr. Zachry was to have been unopposed, his passing left no candidate for the position.
6.As a further result of Mr. Zachry’s untimely death, Plaintiff Candace Taylor (and Democratic Party officials of Tarrant County) now faces the prospect of having the Republican Party offer a replacement for Mr. Zachry. In fact, the Republican Party has named Judge Ruben Gonzalez – the very candidate whom Mr. Zachry defeated in the March primary - as the replacement for Mr. Zachry. Neither Ms. Taylor nor Democratic Party officials finds Judge Gonzalez to be a satisfactory replacement nominee, and do not believe Judge Gonzalez is the best candidate to hold the position of Judge of the 432nd District Court.
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FORPage 4
Accordingly, Ms. Taylor has been requested by the Democratic Party to run against Judge Gonzalez in the General Election, and Ms. Taylor has been named by the Democratic Party of Tarrant County as a replacement candidate due to the death of Tom Zachry.
7.On July 19, 2010, the Tarrant County Democratic Party Executive Committee, a quorum being present, nominated Candace Taylor as the Democratic Party for the office of 432nd District Court. Tarrant County Democratic Party Chairman Steve Maxwell immediately certified the nomination and forwarded Candace Taylor's nomination to the Texas Secretary of State. Ms. Taylor’s name was submitted to the Texas Secretary of State in accordance with Texas law and procedure. See Tex. Elec. Code §143.037. A copy of a letter from Mr. Stephen C. Maxwell, Tarrant County Democratic Party Chair, to the Secretary is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Secretary, however, has rejected Ms. Taylor as a candidate, stating that she is not qualified to run in the General Election against Judge Gonzalez for the sole reason that Ms. Taylor was not selected as a candidate by the Democratic Party in its March primary elections. A copy of an August 3, 2010 letter from the Secretary to Mr. Maxwell, denying certification of Ms. Taylor as a nominee, is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
8.Plaintiff Candace Taylor believes the Secretary of State’s position on this issue is unfounded, and therefore brings this action seeking an order from this Court that Candace Taylor be placed on the ballot as a judicial candidate for
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FORPage 5
the 432nd District Court in the General Election scheduled to be held in the State
of Texas on November 2, 2010.
IV.
ARGUMENT AND LEGAL AUTHORITIES
9.The Secretary relies on Sections 145.035 and 145.036 of the Texas Election Code (the “Code”) as the basis for denying Ms. Taylor a place on the General Election ballot. Section 145.036(a) of the Code states as follows:
(a)Except as provided by Subsection (b), if a candidate's name is to be omitted from the ballot under Section 145.035, the political party's state, district, county, or precinct executive committee, as appropriate for the particular office, may nominate a replacement candidate to fill the vacancy in the nomination.
Subsection (b) establishes the conditions whereby a committee may select
a replacement nominee who has withdrawn due to a catastrophic illness, and is
therefore inapplicable to the situation at hand.
10.The Secretary contends that, because Ms Taylor was not a candidate for the 432nd judicial post in the Democratic Party’s primary election, Ms. Taylor may not now be listed as a candidate for the position on the General Election ballot. The Secretary’s position is that, for candidates who withdraw because of death, the replacement process requires that any replacement nominee must be one who was a candidate in a party’s primary (or at least that the party must have listed a candidate for the position in its primary election).
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FORPage 6
The Secretary’s Position Violates the Texas Constitution
11.Article 5, Section 28 of the Texas Constitution states that, in the event of a vacancy in the office of judge of a district court, any such vacancy will be filled by the Governor of Texas, and the appointee shall serve until “the next succeeding General Election….” TEX. CONST. ART. 5, SEC. 28. At the General Election, “…the voters shall fill the vacancy for the unexpired term.” Id.
12.Under the circumstances of this case, the “vacancy” occurred only because a new court was created, and the Governor properly appointed a judge – Judge Gonzalez – to serve until the next General Election.
13.The Texas Constitution, however, requires that at the next General Election, it is the voters who decide who will serve as judge. The voters are not even being given that opportunity in this case and, in fact, if the Secretary’s position were to be sustained, the voters would be allowed to select only one major party candidate whom voters (those who voted in the Republican primary) have already rejected as a candidate!1 The inequity of such a situation is obvious, fundamentally flawed, and violates the precepts of our State’s Constitution.
14.Furthermore, the Texas Election Code, as applied by the Texas Secretary of State, violates Candace Taylor’s right to Equal Protection, Candace
1Judge Gonzalez lost the primary election by some 20 points.
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FORPage 7
Taylor's First Amendment Right to be a candidate, and the voters of Tarrant County's rights to vote, as protected by the Texas Constitution. There is no rational basis or compelling interest under the Texas Equal Protection Clause to allow the Republican Party to nominate a candidate while not allowing the Democratic Party to nominate a candidate after the death of the Republican nominee. Candace Taylor had no desire to run when Tom Zachary was a candidate; only upon Mr. Zachry’s death did Ms. Taylor agree to run for the 432nd District Court. There is no rational basis or compelling interest under the Equal Protection Clause to deny voters the right to choose between two candidates for the 432nd District Court after the death of Tom Zachary.
Statutes Must Be Strictly Construed in Favor of Ballot Access
15.Any constitutional or statutory provision which restricts the right to hold office must be strictly construed against ineligibility. Texas Democratic Party v. Benkiser, 459 F.3d 582, 590 (5th Cir. 2006); Wentworth v. Meyer, 839 S.W.2d 766-67 (Tex. 1992). The Texas Supreme Court has consistently held that political candidates’ access to the ballot shall be given precedence over “rigid adherence to statutory deadlines, when a candidate is deprived of a place on the ballot through no fault of the candidate’s.” See Bird v. Rothstein, 930 S.W.2d 586, 588 (Tex. 1996); Davis v. Taylor, 930 S.W.2d 581, 583 (Tex. 1996). Laws must be construed broadly in favor of eligibility in the interest of access to
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FORPage 8
the ballot. See Pilcher v. Rains, 853 F.2d 334, 336 (5th Cir. 1988); Davis, 930
S.W.2d at 583.
Strict Adherence to Code Deadlines Inapplicable in Unusual Situations
16.Moreover, the Texas Supreme Court has explicitly held that “withdrawal and replacement deadlines in the Election Code are not intended to apply to unusual situations when there is not a reasonable opportunity to comply with a statutorily set deadline.” Slagle v. Hannah, 837 S.W.2d 100, 102 (Tex. 1992). Nor is it unprecedented for a candidate to be placed on a general election ballot by a process other than primary election, where circumstances prevented the candidate from running in the primary. See In re Dupont, 142 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2004, orig. proceeding). In Dupont, a vacancy occurred too late for nominees to be selected by voters in a primary election; therefore, the Parker County Republican Party selected a nominee by a meeting of the Party’s Executive Committee. Id. at 529-30.
17.The Secretary nevertheless has opted for a construction of Code §145.036 that would prevent access to the ballot by Ms. Taylor, despite the lack of any concrete basis for such an interpretation. As reflected in the Secretary’s August 3rd letter, the Secretary relies upon a single phrase – emphasized in the letter – as the basis for denying Ms. Taylor’s nomination. The portion of the statute at issue states:
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FORPage 9
Except as provided by Subsection (b), if a candidate’s name is to be omitted from the ballot under Section 145.035, the political party’s state, district or precinct executive committee….may nominate a replacement candidate….”
(emphasis taken from Secretary of State’s August 3, 2010 letter).
18.The Secretary, however, ignores the unusual circumstances of this case. At the time the primary elections were held, Ms. Taylor (and Democratic Party representatives) was confident that Mr. Zachry would defeat Judge Gonzalez in the primary election, and that Mr. Zachry would be an excellent judge for the 432nd District Court. Accordingly, Ms. Taylor, content with Mr. Zachry as a nominee for the judgeship, with the blessing of the Democratic Party, did not run in the primary. Candace Taylor's nomination is proper and not prohibited by the terms of section 145.036 of the Texas Election Code.
19.Obviously, circumstances changed with Mr. Zachry’s tragic death. Neither Ms. Taylor nor the Democratic Party is satisfied that Judge Gonzalez – who lost the primary election to Mr. Zachry – will serve at the same level as Mr. Zachry would have. As such, both Ms. Taylor and the Democratic Party are compelled to offer voters another selection for the judgeship, someone other than a candidate who was rejected by primary voters in March 2010.
20.This is precisely the type of “unusual situation” to which the Texas Supreme Court referred in holding that Election Code withdrawal and replacement deadlines must not be construed in such a way as to prevent
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FORPage 10
Filling out the Texas Writ Mandamus form is a step-by-step process that requires attention to detail. Before beginning, it's important to gather all the necessary information, including any supporting documentation that will need to be attached. This form is used to request an emergency application for a writ of mandamus and injunctive relief in response to urgent matters that need to be resolved in court. It involves a legal process where the filer is asking for a court to make a specific decision. The following steps outline how to accurately complete this form.
After completing these steps, review the form carefully to ensure all information is accurate and no section has been overlooked. You will need to file this form with the appropriate court, along with any required filing fees. Following submission, you may need to prepare for a court appearance where you'll present your case. Monitoring the progress of your case and responding promptly to any court communications is crucial. Remember, this process can vary depending on the specifics of your case, so it's advisable to seek legal guidance tailored to your particular situation.
A Writ of Mandamus is a court order directing a public official, governmental entity, or lower court to perform a duty legally required. It is a form of legal action taken when all other judicial remedies have been exhausted and is often seen as a measure of last resort. In the context of elections, such as the one detailed in the application, it can be used to compel officials to take specific actions like placing a candidate's name on an election ballot.
In Texas, any individual or entity that has a clear legal right to the requested action by a public official or entity may file for a Writ of Mandamus. The petitioner must have a clear legal right to the relief sought, and it must be shown that no other adequate legal remedies are available. In the case at hand, Candace Taylor is filing as a petitioner, claiming a right to be placed on the ballot for the upcoming general election.
The necessary components include:
This section underscores the urgency of the matter, highlighting the time-sensitive nature of election-related procedures. It is crucial because it requests the court to prioritize the case to meet predefined electoral deadlines, ensuring the matter is resolved in time for the election.
This section establishes the legal foundation for the court's ability to hear the case and outlines how the defendants are to be legally notified. It is crucial as it confirms that the court is the appropriate venue for the dispute and outlines the procedure for ensuring the defendants are aware of the legal action.
Rejections can occur for several reasons, such as the candidate not meeting the legal qualifications, missing filing deadlines, or procedural errors in the nomination process. In this instance, the rejection was based on the Secretary's interpretation that Candace Taylor was not properly selected as a candidate in the Democratic Party's March primary elections.
The factual background should provide:
Yes, a candidate who has been denied placement on an election ballot can challenge the decision. This is typically done through the filing of a Writ of Mandamus, as seen in Candace Taylor's situation, where the legal challenge is directed against the decision of the election authority.
Serving the defendants involves officially notifying them of the legal action and providing them with a copy of the application. This process is important to ensure the defendants are aware of the proceedings and have an opportunity to respond. The application details specific locations where the defendants, in this case, the Secretary of State and the Tarrant County Elections Administrator, can be served.
Possible outcomes include:
Filling out the Texas Writ of Mandamus form requires attention to detail and understanding of legal procedures. Mistakes can delay or compromise the process. Here are ten common errors to avoid:
When completing the Texas Writ of Mandamus form, paying close attention to these details ensures that your application is properly reviewed and considered.
When preparing to file a Texas Writ of Mandamus, it's crucial to gather all necessary documents to support your case. This form is a powerful tool used to request a higher court to compel a government official, agency, or court to fulfill their official duties required by law. To ensure a comprehensive approach, several other forms and documents may be required to bolster your petition. Below is a list of documents commonly used alongside the Texas Writ of Mandamus form.
Collectively, these documents ensure that the petition for a Writ of Mandamus is well-supported, thoroughly presenting the case to the court. The precise nature of the required information and the procedural requirements emphasize the need for thorough preparation and attention to detail in every aspect of the case. It's not just about presenting a legal request, but doing so in a way that unequivocally demonstrates the necessity of judicial intervention to correct a failure or refusal to act by a public official or entity.
The Texas Writ of Mandamus form closely resembles a Complaint used in civil litigation. Like a Complaint, the Writ of Mandamus outlines specific allegations against the defendants, stating how they have possibly failed in their duties or actions, similar to how a plaintiff in a civil case would allege wrongful acts by a defendant. Both serve to initiate formal legal action, set forth the basis of the court's jurisdiction, describe the actionable events, and request legal or equitable relief. The Writ of Mandamus specifically seeks to compel a governmental authority to perform a certain act, reflecting its unique nature compared to other forms of relief sought in a typical Complaint.
Another similar document is the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. In the context of the Texas Writ of Mandamus form, the Emergency Application for Injunctive Relief mirrors a Motion for Preliminary Injunction by requesting the court to take immediate action to prevent harm before the case can be fully resolved. Both documents require demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits of the case, the potential for irreparable harm without the injunction, the balance of equities favoring the applicant, and that the injunction is in the public interest. These criteria are essential to persuade the court to grant a preliminary injunction or emergency injunctive relief.
The Petition for Extraordinary Relief also shares similarities with the Texas Writ of Mandamus form. This kind of petition is another legal mechanism to request a higher court to compel a lower court or a government official to perform a duty they are legally obligated to do, or to correct an abuse of discretion. Like the Writ of Mandamus, it is used when no other remedy is available or adequate, highlighting the extraordinary nature of the relief sought. Both documents underscore the urgency and necessity of direct court intervention to rectify a legal matter.
Last, the Texas Writ of Mandamus form can be compared to an Application for a Stay. Though the primary purpose of an Application for a Stay is to pause legal proceedings or the enforcement of a judgment, it shares the urgency and critical need for immediate action that characterizes the Emergency Application for Injunctive Relief within the Writ of Mandanumus form. Applicants must convince the court that proceeding without the stay would lead to irreparable harm, akin to how plaintiffs argue for emergency injunctive relief to prevent immediate injury or loss that could not be compensated by damages later.
Filling out the Texas Writ of Mandamus form requires attention to detail and precision. Below are key do's and don'ts to ensure your form is completed accurately and effectively.
By adhering to these dos and don'ts, you increase the likelihood that your petition will be accurately and favorably reviewed. Remember, clarity, precision, and attention to legal protocols are paramount in legal document preparation.
There are several misconceptions about the Texas Writ of Mandamus form and its use. Here are nine commonly misunderstood aspects clarified for better understanding:
Understanding these facets helps clarify how a Texas Writ of Mandamus functions and underlines its importance as a critical tool for ensuring that public duties are executed according to law.
When considering the use and filing of the Texas Writ Mandamus form, it is important to focus on several key elements that could heavily impact the outcome of the petition. Here are six takeaways to keep in mind:
In crafting a Writ of Mandamus, it is imperative to build a compelling, clear, and legally sound argument that underscores the necessity of court intervention. Documentation and adherence to procedural protocols play pivotal roles in the success of these petitions.
Tdlr Tow Truck Requirements - Information on required fees for barber shop permit application in Texas.
Do I Need a Business License to Sell Online in Texas - Non-sole owners must describe their business organization type on the Texas Ap 169 form.