In re Uresti
377 S.W.3d 696
| Tex. | 2012Background
- Choco Gonzalez Meza, Chair of the Bexar County Democratic Party, determined Caballero’s petition signatures were insufficient under Tex. Election Code § 172.021(e).
- Caballero sued Meza, the Bexar County Democratic Party, and Bexar County seeking injunctive relief to appear on the ballot.
- Tomás Uresti, Caballero’s opponent, intervened in the suit.
- The trial court granted a temporary injunction compelling Caballero’s name to be placed on the ballot.
- The court agrees the mandamus petition is moot because the primary election has concluded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the mandamus petition moot after the election? | Uresti argues mootness is defeated by potential repetition. | Caballero argues the case is moot. | Moot; petition dismissed. |
| Does the capable of repetition yet evading review exception apply? | Uresti contends the exception applies because action could recur. | Caballero contends the exception is not demonstrated. | Exception not shown; mootness stands. |
| Was there a reasonable expectation of similar action in future elections? | Uresti lacks evidence of a recurring pattern affecting a candidate. | Caballero has not shown ongoing repeatability of signature-witness actions. | Not established; no repetition here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Polk v. Davidson, 145 Tex. 200, 196 S.W.2d 632 (1946) (mootness when issues cannot be heard and final judgment rendered in time for ballots)
- Skelton v. Yates, 131 Tex. 620, 119 S.W.2d 91 (1938) (early mootness precedent)
- Bejarano v. Hunter, 899 S.W.2d 346 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1995) (election contest action and sufficiency of information in applications)
- Law v. Johnson, 826 S.W.2d 794 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992) (no writ; discussion of mootness in election context)
- Smith v. Crawford, 747 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1988) (orig. proceeding in election matter)
- Blum v. Lanier, 997 S.W.2d 259 (Tex.1999) (capable of repetition yet evading review; short duration action)
- Bejarano v. Hunter, 899 S.W.2d 346 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1995) (repeated submission of insufficient applications context)
- Gen. Land Office v. OXY U.S.A., Inc., 789 S.W.2d 569 (Tex.1990) (definition of capable of repetition)