409 S.W.3d 178
Tex. App.2013Background
- Relators (Rodriguez, Forgas, Gilmore) obtained a March 18, 2013 mandamus from the Ninth Court of Appeals directing Beaumont ISD (BISD) to hold its May 11, 2013 trustee election using a single-member redistricting map adopted Feb. 21, 2013, and to accept relators’ applications or certify unopposed candidates.
- The Court’s mandamus relaxed certain Election and Education Code deadlines to allow the May election to proceed on the mandated map and noted federal preclearance might be required.
- BISD sought Section 5 preclearance in federal court; while that process was pending, the D.C. federal court enjoined BISD from holding the May election and BISD cancelled the May election and scheduled a November election.
- Relators sued in Jefferson County state court to enjoin the cancellation and the proposed November election; that case was removed to federal court and then remanded back to state court. BISD’s preclearance action remained pending in D.C. federal court.
- After Shelby County v. Holder invalidated Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, uncertainty arose about whether preclearance objections still applied; both federal and state litigation continued.
- Relators moved this Court to enforce its March 2013 writ (or alternatively to order an election under a 5/2 plan — Plan 5F); the Court declined to act because related claims and remedies for any November election were actively pending in other courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should enforce its March 2013 mandamus after the May election was enjoined and cancelled | Enforce writ; order an election, set filing deadlines, and require all positions be filled under a 5/2 plan (Plan 5F) | BISD: court should not force a May election now impossible; BISD can reschedule for Nov.; 5/2 plan is defensible and court-ordered relief would be improper | Denied enforcement; mandamus dismissed without prejudice because related claims are pending in other courts and the May election did not occur |
| Whether equitable relief should delay or change scheduled election dates | Relators: remedy required because BISD failed to provide for trustees to serve remaining terms after redistricting | BISD: delaying or ordering a different election date is improper; statutory compliance now impossible because of federal process and election results | Court declined to exercise equitable mandamus here; avoided premature adjudication due to ongoing litigation |
| Whether preclearance uncertainty (post-Shelby) affects the requested state-court mandamus relief | Relators: presumed BISD must comply with preclearance but still sought state relief | BISD: Shelby may render preclearance objections moot; if so, a 5-2 plan could control and court-ordered Map 7b would be improper | Court did not decide effect of Shelby; left questions for federal/state courts and refused to resolve them via mandamus |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Rodriguez, 397 S.W.3d 817 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013) (prior mandamus ordering May election on adopted redistricting map)
- In re Gamble, 71 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. 2002) (courts generally avoid exercising equitable powers when doing so may delay an election)
- In re Uresti, 377 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. 2012) (mootness doctrine principles governing appellate relief)
- Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (U.S. 2013) (invalidating Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act and affecting federal preclearance)
- Robinson v. Parker, 353 S.W.3d 753 (Tex. 2011) (courts should avoid advisory opinions and premature adjudication)
- McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Cortez, 66 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. 2001) (discussion of advisory-opinion concerns)