Cohen v. Strake

рer- correspond to a PRESSLER, MURPHY, Before PAUL (Emphasis son’s residence. ELLIS, JJ. argued signature is invalid it as the state of residencе. omits “Texas” sig- petitions contain standard, such a natures which meet required number. below original proceeding Honorable In an This court has held that Cohen, Justice of petition does not year from a date on a First District of Appеals for the invalid. Leal render be ordered asks (1986, Mather, orig. pro- petition of reject James ambiguity less is involved Evеn ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‍general primary place for a on the Scott of the state of residence in the omission court. for Place of that signatory has included the infor- when file the deny the motion for leave to By here. mation contained petition for writ of mandamus. city, county code the state applica that Scott’s Relator asserts conclusively established. The basis petitions are defective. tion Furthermore, has re- allegation for this is: analogous argument in jeсted an Wallace signa- (1) less than the number (1986, orig. pro- Howell, 707 S.W.2d 876 designated of Scott’s tories contended that ceеding). There the relator residence, as their state “Texas” improperly filed for the another candidate “Justice, rather Supreme Court” office of (2) grouped many petitions un- Scott “Justice, Supreme Court Texas” than only a notarized affidavits der few Id. at 878. (rather attaching affidavit than one argument has Finally, relator’s petition). to each ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‍by another rejected expressly been on TEX. argument is based Relator’s first Veselka, court. Love appellate 1.005(17). 141.063(2)(A), ELEC.CODE §§ (Tex.App. No. 01-88-00008-CV provides as follows: The former orig. proceeding) Dist.], Jan. [1st Signature Validity of 141.063. § cor (not sister court yet reported). Our petition is valid if: A on a Act the Code Construction rectly looked to ^{[*] [*] [*] [*] [*] [*]} principle that legislature in- agree B. just Murry in enact with Relator Cohen’s tends a and reasonable result ing a statute. See TEX.GOVT CODE first contention that James Scott's 1.003(а) 311.002(3); TEX.ELEC.CODE ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‍§ § comply with TEX.ELEC.CODE Act). (invoking Construction (Vernon 1986), 141.062(a)(2) ANN. the settled rule conclusion bolstered signatures in the "statutory purpose fоr a specified the Code petition to full signatory each on list his 141.063(2)(A)provides that lawful. Section to and voter number is аddress is petition on valid it in Gray v. allow verification desired.” signer’s is cludes the residence address. It Vance, 16, (Tex.Civ.App.— 567 S.W.2d 17 rеquirements well that the established 1978, The orig. proceeding). Fort Worth mandatory and section 141.063 are city in held Gray court сompliance must be in strict candidate with fatal defect. or street address See Vance, Gray 16 the Code. v. 567 S.W.2d Brewеr, (Tex. Hoot S.W.2d 758 also 640 1978, writ) (Tex.Civ.App. Worth no 1982, orig. pro App. [1st Dist.] — Fort holding (orig. proceeding). has no address is Relator cited case Residence 1.005(17) omission of by defined section of the Election as the state of residence fatal. Cоde as: upon ap apartment The second attack any Scott’s having only a plication on focuses Sсott’s state, city, number ... and the multiple pages few affidavits attached to to a correspond person’s resi- rе petitions. points Relator out the (emphasis dence. quirements TEX.ELEC.CODE valid, signatures Accordingly, to be 141.065(a): part petitiоn of a “[e]ach the street Scott’s must contain include an must affidavit....” petition as each reads the statute any of code. Exclusion of this information face. to have an affidavit on its invalid, because it renders the gathered pеrsonally all the Here Scott strictly comply statutory does not with the person- signatures. He them and collected rеquirements. by signing forms ally vouched for them spaces. ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‍appropriate He did so in the only In instant case thirteen of bеginning at signing an affidavit at the signatures contain the state resi- Scott’s petitions. This end of each collection of Thеrefore, Scott has dence. procedure complied printed fully with the signatures, below the petitions: of the instructions on back Respondent’s required. duty It petition may parts, of several consist accept to refuse to sеveral part each consist of they do not contain the because in the at the pages. The statement bоx signatures. minimum number of valid Be- appear at the page head of the must failed follow his Respondent cause signatures. page head of each duties, I he do statutory would order that Moreover, an affi- Scott has tendered us immеdiately. so affirming personal his verification of davit require established that the signing well procedures. strictly be ments of thе Election Code must mandatory: each In construed and followed. Jones Math coupled with a affidavit. must er, 299, (Tex.App complied statute. 300 Scott has with the S.W.2d . —Hous 1986, writ) (orig. pro ton [14th Dist.] is de- motion for leave Relator’s ceeding), must this court statеd “[w]e nied. filing to en strictly deadline construe the ELLIS, Justice, dissenting. Similarly, compliance.” in Wallace sure Howell, (Tex.1986),the Finding disаgreement myself dissent, clear, strong over court made like to panel, would other members strictly statutes would my respеctful that election record dissent. Gray, enforced. strued and specific held that re- the court in this case man-

quirements at issue compliance.

datory, and strict case,

Accordingly, the re- in the instant

quirements strictly must be construed

enforced His failure to he be to com-

so ORDERED statutory duties.

ply with his grant to Relator to file his

I would leave grant

petition for writ of mandamus

his writ. Houston, for relator. Sokolow,

Mark BACON, Relator, Mary Elizabeth JUNELL, Before ROBERTSON ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‍CANNON, JJ. HARRIS COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE,

EXECUTIVE No. C-14-88-012-CV. relator, proceeding this mandamus Texas, Bacon, Mary Judge of the Hon. Elizabeth of Harris 338th Judicial District Court County, asks this Court Manes, respondent, Secretary, Harris Ires Party

County Republican Executive Com- mittеe, party of the real to omit the name interest, Sokolow, Repub- Mark from the for the Party primary lican primary be held on general election to petition for deny March 1988. We mandamus. writ of application, has filed an aсcom- Sokolow name panied by petitions, to have his Judge placed on the ballot for the office of the 338th District Court of Harris Coun- ty Republican Primary. first asserts that Sokolow’s

application is defective because it does sought is that of state that the office Court, but states Judge, 338th District sought “338th is that of the office District Court.” Texas Election

Section 172.021 make an requires that a candidate

Case Details

Case Name: Cohen v. Strake

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Jan 8, 1988

Citation: 743 S.W.2d 366

Docket Number: B-14-88-011-CV

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.