Devvy Kidd v. Carlos Cascos, Texas Secretary of State, 03-14-00805-CV

Appellant Dewy Kidd filed a pro se suit in Travis County seeking a writ of prohibition and injunction against the Texas Secretary of State (Carlos Cascos), challenging the Secretary’s proclamation that the Seventeenth Amendment had been validly ratified.
In district court the Secretary moved to dismiss, arguing Kidd lacked taxpayer standing and that sovereign immunity barred the suit; the trial court dismissed Kidd’s complaint.
Kidd’s reply brief contends he demonstrated standing and that sovereign-immunity is inapplicable, but the trial court did not address these points.
On appeal Kidd argues the Secretary of State failed to brief or oppose several issues (including standing, sovereign immunity, and the constitutionality of Revised Statutes §205), so those defenses and arguments are waived.
Kidd further argues §205 (and the federal “enrolled bill” presumption as applied) creates an unconstitutional conclusive presumption that prevents rebuttal of state ratification records (he claims California and Wisconsin did not legally ratify the Seventeenth Amendment).
Kidd asks the appellate court to reverse the dismissal and remand for further proceedings to adjudicate whether the Amendment was constitutionally ratified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Taxpayer standing	Kidd: he has standing to challenge ratification; district court didn’t address his proof.	Secretary: Kidd lacks taxpayer standing (basis for dismissal).	Trial court dismissed the complaint; Kidd urges reversal asserting he has standing.
Sovereign immunity	Kidd: sovereign immunity does not bar this suit; Texas caselaw permits relief.	Secretary: sovereign immunity bars suit.	Trial court dismissed; Kidd contends immunity defense is inapplicable and was not addressed.
Constitutionality of Revised Statutes §205 / enrolled bill rule	Kidd: §205 and the enrolled bill rule, as applied, create a conclusive (mandatory) presumption and are unconstitutional because they foreclose rebuttal of state ratification records.	Secretary: (did not brief/address this issue on appeal; relied on §205/enrolled bill rule historically).	Kidd argues §205 is unconstitutional and that appellee waived response; appellate court asked to resolve the constitutional claim if not deemed waived.
State-court jurisdiction to adjudicate federal-ratification questions	Kidd: state courts may decide constitutional questions about ratification; federal jurisdiction is not exclusive.	Secretary: implied reliance on federal precedent and §205 to validate proclamation (no appellate response noted).	Kidd asserts state court may hear the claim and requests remand; the appellate outcome is not included in the brief.

Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921) (ratification of a constitutional amendment must occur within a reasonable time after proposal)
Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922) (discussing the enrolled bill rule as applied to constitutional amendments)
Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly, 494 U.S. 820 (1990) (state courts may adjudicate federal causes of action absent exclusive federal jurisdiction)
Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473 (1981) (federal jurisdiction principles and state-court competence on federal issues)
Ass'n of Tex. Prof'l Educators v. Kirby, 788 S.W.2d 827 (Tex. 1990) (criticizing the enrolled bill rule and noting opposition to conclusive presumptions)
Tatum v. Liner, 749 S.W.2d 251 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1988) (mandatory conclusive presumptions disallowed under Texas law)
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Lenk, 361 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. 2012) (appellee waiver of appellate issues if not properly raised)