law-election-law
Election Law - Texas Supreme Court Decisions
Andrade v. NAACP of Austin (Tex. 2011),
No. 09-0420 (Tex. Jul. 1, 2011)(Opinion by Chief Wallace B. Jefferson)(challenge to electronic
voting without paper record)
Technology is changing the way we vote. It has not eliminated controversy about the way
votes are recorded and verified. We must decide whether voters have standing to pursue
complaints about an electronic voting machine that does not produce a contemporaneous
paper record of each vote. Because we conclude that most of the voters’ allegations involve
generalized grievances about the lawfulness of government acts, and because their
remaining claims fail on their merits, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and render
judgment dismissing the case.
Conclusion. The voters raise legitimate concerns about system integrity and
vulnerability. But these are policy disputes more appropriately resolved in the give-and-take of
politics. Perhaps the Secretary will decide, as California has, to de-certify certain DREs. Perhaps
the Legislature will require a contemporaneous paper record of votes cast, or perhaps Texas will
curtail or abandon DRE use altogether. But we cannot say the Secretary’s decision to certify this
device violated the voters’ equal protection rights or that the voters can pursue generalized
grievances about the lawfulness of her acts. “Vindicating the public interest (including the public
interest in Government observance of the Constitution and laws) is the function of [the
Legislature] and the Chief Executive.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 576. We reverse the court of appeals’
judgment and render judgment dismissing the case. Tex. R. App. P. 60.2(c).
CASE DETAILS: ESPERANZA ANDRADE, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE
STATE OF TEXAS v. NAACP OF AUSTIN, NELSON LINDER, SONIA SANTANA AND DAVID VAN OS; from Travis
County;
3rd district (03-08-00076-CV, 287 SW3d 240, 04-10-09)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
Here is the link to e-briefs in case no. 09-0420 ESPERANZA ANDRADE v. NAACP OF AUSTIN
In re Calla Davis (Tex. 2008),
No. 07-0147 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Jefferson) (mandamus denial) (election law)
(alcohol regulation by vote, procedure for local option referendum to turn dry area wet when
boundaries of relevant area have changed)
IN RE CALLA DAVIS, MELVIN HURST III, AND ANN B. HEARN; 5th district
(05-07-00198-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 02-22-07)
motion to strike response to mandamus, as amended, denied
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a), the Court denies the petition for writ of
mandamus.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court.
Election Law - Texas Court of Appeals Decisions
Houston Court of Appeals Denies Mandamus Relief in Texas Republican Party Convention
Dispute