Devvy Kidd v. Carlos Cascos, Texas Secretary of State
03-14-00805-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 29, 2015Background
- Appellant Devvy Kidd filed a pro se petition seeking declarations and an injunction that the Seventeenth Amendment was not constitutionally ratified and that senatorial elections conducted by popular vote are "null, void, and illegal."
- Kidd sued the Texas Secretary of State (as the State's chief election officer) seeking to bar any state action related to senatorial elections.
- The Secretary of State moved to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, arguing Kidd failed to state a plausible legal claim; alternative jurisdictional defenses were also raised but not reached below.
- The trial court granted the Rule 91a motion and dismissed Kidd's claims with prejudice; Kidd appealed.
- The State's brief argues the Seventeenth Amendment has been part of the Constitution since 1913, courts uniformly treat the Secretary of State's certification as conclusive, and prior challenges to ratification have been repeatedly rejected as baseless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the Seventeenth Amendment | Kidd: ratification was "false, fraudulent, and constitutionally inadequate," so the Amendment is not part of the Constitution | Cascos: amendment was validly ratified in 1913 and became "supreme Law of the Land"; longstanding precedent treats certification as conclusive | Court: dismissal affirmed — challenge is legally baseless; amendment is settled law |
| Adequacy of pleading under Rule 91a | Kidd: historical records raise doubts sufficient to proceed | Cascos: even taking allegations as true, they do not state a plausible claim; Rule 91a permits dismissal for baseless causes | Court: Rule 91a dismissal proper — allegations cannot plausibly overcome a century of settled law |
| Availability of equitable relief (injunction/declaratory relief) | Kidd: seeks prospective injunction against Secretary of State actions in senatorial elections | Cascos: no legal basis to enjoin state election actions because the Seventeenth Amendment is valid | Court: relief unavailable because underlying claim fails; dismissal stands |
| Jurisdiction / standing (alternative defense) | Kidd: brought suit in state court claiming constitutional defect | Cascos: argued lack of standing, political-question/nonjusticiability, and sovereign immunity (trial court did not reach) | Court: appellate review limited to Rule 91a dismissal; but State contends jurisdictional defects would independently bar suit |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (dismissal may be based on dispositive legal issues)
- Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (Seventeenth Amendment requires choice of Senators "by the people")
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (Seventeenth Amendment expands right of suffrage)
- U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (Seventeenth Amendment eliminated state power over Senator selection)
- Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (Secretary of State certification of amendment ratification is conclusive on courts)