The Texas Writ of Mandamus form is a legal document used to request a court order compelling a government official to perform a duty that they are legally obligated to complete. This form is often filed when a party believes that their rights have been violated due to inaction or improper action by a public official. For those seeking to fill out the form, please click the button below.
The Texas Writ of Mandamus form serves as a critical legal tool for individuals seeking to compel government officials to fulfill their duties when they have failed to do so. In the context of the electoral process, this form is particularly significant for candidates facing challenges related to their eligibility or placement on the ballot. The case of Candace Taylor against the Secretary of State of Texas and the Tarrant County Elections Administrator exemplifies the urgency and importance of this legal remedy. Ms. Taylor, having met all qualifications for candidacy, found herself in a precarious position when her nomination was rejected based on a procedural technicality. The form outlines the jurisdiction and venue for the case, as well as the request for an expedited hearing due to impending election deadlines. It highlights the factual background of the situation, including the tragic death of the initially nominated candidate, which created a vacancy and prompted the Democratic Party to nominate Ms. Taylor as a replacement. The form also details the immediate need for judicial intervention to ensure that qualified candidates are not unjustly excluded from the electoral process. By utilizing the Writ of Mandamus, Ms. Taylor seeks to ensure her rightful place on the ballot, underscoring the form's role in safeguarding democratic participation.
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 requires careful attention to detail. Once completed, the form will be submitted to the appropriate court for consideration. Below are the steps to fill out the form accurately.
A Writ of Mandamus is a court order compelling a government official or entity to perform a specific act that they are legally obligated to complete. In Texas, it is often used to challenge decisions made by state officials, such as the Secretary of State or election administrators.
Any individual or entity that believes they have been wronged by a government action can file a Writ of Mandamus. This includes candidates seeking to be placed on a ballot or individuals contesting decisions made by state officials.
Common grounds include:
The process generally involves the following steps:
Deadlines can vary depending on the specific circumstances. However, it is crucial to file as soon as possible, especially if it relates to upcoming elections. For example, deadlines for candidate filings or ballot certifications are often set by law and can be as early as a few weeks before an election.
Relief may include:
If your petition is denied, you may have options for appeal. Consulting with a legal expert is advisable to explore further actions or to understand the reasoning behind the denial.
Incomplete Information: One of the most common mistakes is failing to fill out all required fields. Every section of the form must be completed accurately to avoid delays or rejections.
Incorrect Case Number: Applicants often forget to include the correct case number. This number is crucial for the court to process the application efficiently.
Missing Signatures: Failing to sign the form is a frequent oversight. Without a signature, the document is considered invalid.
Improper Formatting: Some people neglect the formatting guidelines. The document should be typed and adhere to specific margins and font sizes as required by the court.
Failure to Attach Exhibits: Many forget to attach necessary supporting documents or exhibits. These attachments are vital for substantiating the claims made in the petition.
Not Following Filing Procedures: Individuals often do not follow the proper filing procedures. It is essential to understand how and where to file the writ to ensure it is accepted by the court.
Missing Deadlines: Applicants frequently overlook critical deadlines. Submitting the writ after the deadline can result in dismissal.
Inaccurate Legal Grounds: Some people misstate the legal grounds for their request. A clear and accurate statement of the legal basis is essential for the court's consideration.
Insufficient Details: Providing vague or insufficient details about the case can hinder the court's understanding. Clear, concise, and comprehensive information is necessary.
Not Seeking Legal Advice: Many individuals attempt to fill out the form without consulting a legal professional. Seeking guidance can help avoid common pitfalls and improve the chances of success.
When filing a Texas Writ of Mandamus, several other documents often accompany it. Each of these plays a crucial role in the legal process, helping to clarify the case and support the request for relief. Here’s a list of common forms and documents that you might encounter.
Each of these documents serves a unique purpose in the legal process. They help ensure that the case is presented clearly and that all parties understand their rights and responsibilities. Properly preparing these documents can significantly impact the outcome of the case.
The Texas Writ of Mandamus form shares similarities with a Motion for Summary Judgment. Both documents aim to prompt a court to take action, often to resolve a dispute without a full trial. A Motion for Summary Judgment requests the court to rule in favor of one party based on evidence that is undisputed. Similarly, the Writ of Mandamus seeks a court order to compel a government official or agency to perform a duty they are legally obligated to fulfill. In essence, both documents serve as tools for expediting legal processes, ensuring that justice is served without unnecessary delays.
Another document akin to the Texas Writ of Mandamus is a Petition for Injunctive Relief. This petition requests the court to issue an injunction, which is a legal order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing specific acts. Like the Writ of Mandamus, the Petition for Injunctive Relief seeks immediate action from the court. Both documents are often filed in urgent situations where waiting could result in irreparable harm. They emphasize the need for swift judicial intervention to protect rights or interests that may be jeopardized.
The Texas Writ of Mandamus is also similar to a Declaratory Judgment. A Declaratory Judgment is a court ruling that clarifies the legal status of a situation or the rights of the parties involved. Both documents aim to resolve uncertainty and provide clarity. While a Writ of Mandamus compels action, a Declaratory Judgment provides a legal interpretation that can guide future actions. Each serves to prevent disputes from escalating and to provide legal certainty in complex situations.
In addition, the Writ of Mandamus can be compared to a Petition for Review. A Petition for Review is often filed to request a higher court to examine a lower court’s decision. Like the Writ of Mandamus, it seeks to correct a perceived error or injustice. Both documents highlight the importance of accountability within the judicial system and serve as mechanisms for ensuring that legal decisions are fair and just. They provide a pathway for parties to seek relief from unfavorable outcomes.
Furthermore, the Texas Writ of Mandamus bears resemblance to a Motion to Compel. A Motion to Compel is filed to request the court to order a party to comply with a discovery request or other legal obligation. Both documents emphasize the need for compliance with legal duties. They serve as a means to ensure that parties adhere to their responsibilities, thereby promoting fairness in the legal process. The urgency in both cases often necessitates prompt judicial intervention.
Lastly, the Writ of Mandamus is similar to a Request for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). A TRO is a short-term court order intended to maintain the status quo until a more permanent solution can be reached. Both documents are used in urgent situations where immediate action is necessary to prevent harm. They aim to protect the rights of individuals while the court considers the broader implications of the case. In both instances, the focus is on providing timely relief to address pressing legal issues.
When filling out the Texas Writ Mandamus form, there are important dos and don'ts to keep in mind. Following these guidelines can help ensure that your petition is properly submitted and considered.
Misconceptions about the Texas Writ Mandamus form can lead to confusion regarding its purpose and application. Here are four common misunderstandings:
When filling out and using the Texas Writ Mandamus form, consider the following key takeaways: