397 S.W.3d 817
Tex. App.2013Background
- Mandamus to compel BISD to accept ballot applications after redistricting issues.
- Notice Dec 27, 2012 set filing period Jan 30–Mar 1, 2013 but did not specify which districts.
- Relators filed for BISD districts 1–3; March 4 applications rejected as for non-scheduled offices.
- Education Code §11.052 requires all seven board positions be filled after redistricting; Election Code §141.032(e) governs rejection basis.
- Board redistricted Feb 21, 2013 to seven single-member districts; DOJ objected; March 8 order issued to adjust timing but was invalid.
- Court grants mandamus relief to require acceptance of timely applications and to place relators on the ballot using the Feb 21, 2013 redistricting map.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether all board positions must be filled in May 2013 after redistricting | Rodriguez v. BISD: all seven must be filled. | BISD: only expiring or properly scheduled offices are affected. | Yes; all positions must be filled per statute. |
| Whether the filing period can be invalidated by late or improper redistricting actions | Relators contend deadlines were still valid for May election. | Board claimed redistricting altered applicability of offices. | Equitable relief allows proceeding despite timing issues. |
| Whether the Board could reject timely applications due to it not having final redistricting | Applications timely filed must be accepted notwithstanding map issues. | Rejections based on offices not scheduled, per §141.032(e). | Writ granted; accept applications and place on ballot. |
| Effect of March 8 order and use of February 21 map for May election | March 8 order invalid; use Feb 21 map to avoid constitutional violation. | Order attempted to alter timing; map disputed. | Election to proceed under Feb 21, 2013 map; equitable relief granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hadley v. Junior Coll. Dist. of Metro. Kansas City, 397 U.S. 50 (U.S. 1970) (one-person, one-vote standard in elections)
- Moore v. Itawamba Cnty., 431 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2005) (10% deviation not conclusive; constitutional concerns noted)
- Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835 (U.S. 1983) (ten percent threshold considerations in redistricting)
- In re Bell, 91 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. 2002) (equitable relief in election contexts; statutory interpretation guidance)
- In re Gamble, 71 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. 2002) (equitable adjustment of deadlines in election administration)