Saturday, September 6, 2014


I as a matter of policy when I work on this type project, will call the state agency for guidance rather then immediately forming my own opinion.  I am not into reinventing the wheel.

As I already noted, when I asked SOS lawyer Caroline what law requires nicknames be in quotes, she said §52.031.  When I told her I was looking at that section and no such requirement existed in that section, she responded it does not matter because that is the law as far as they know.

Caroline is so devoid of any knowledge of the election code, she did not even know the SOS's own generated form does not provide a place for a nickname.

The last thing I asked her was, does a qualified voter have legal authority to challenge a candidate's name on the ballot?  She was very clear - yes - I did not have to be a candidate.

Well I know enough to not rely on anything the SOS tells me, so as I am preparing to sue BISD on the issue, I decided to include a paragraph on standing.  I then researched the issue - and guess what?- Caroline is batting a 1000 - wrong again.  Only the candidate has standing to file the suit, and not qualified voters.

No citizen standing to bring election contest: In re Jones, 978 S.W.2d 648 (Tex. App.—Amarillo
1998, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]), in which the court indicated that a petitioner’s status as a
citizen or voter was insufficient to confer standing to challenge eligibility of a candidate for election.  
See Jones, 978 S.W.2d at 651 (citing Allen v. Fisher, 9 S.W.2d 731, 732 (1928)); Clifton v. Walters,
No. 2-08-389-CV, 2010 WL 144164, at *3-4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 14, 2010, no pet. h.)
(affirming finding of no standing to challenge candidates’ eligibility for election based on plaintiffs’
citizenship, voter, and taxpayer status)

Anyone dumb enough to rely on anything they are told by the SOS as to election law, deserves to fall flat on their face.  But here is the deal  - I know it is no defense the lawyers at the SOS are incompetent.  I know when I place my name on the lawsuit I better know whether or not I have legal standing to bring the lawsuit, independent of anything I was told by the inept lawyers at the SOS.

Baltazar Salazar and Miguel Salinas, two highly paid lawyers working for BISD are telling Carl Montoya as trained lawyers they are not qualified to give a legal opinion as to the meaning of the word "shall" and term "may not."  Why then are we paying these guys if they are not qualified to provide Carl Montoya an interpretation of simple statutory law?

So the next step will be whether nor not Mary Rey can find a lawyer to help her bring the lawsuit.  I have no problem doing the work - she needs someone in the courtroom able to argue the case for her.  Unless BISD rejects Joe Rod's and Shirley Bowman's applications, a lawsuit needs to be filed to enforce the law


Otis is so driven in his need to have what he wants, he is prepared to lose control as the majority.  It is not complex OTTY - If the law if followed as written Joe Rodriguez and Shirley Bowman are removed from the ballot.  This then means no pathway to a majority for Cata and Lucy.  This means the vendors and Healthsmart will stop all funding of Lucy's campaign and Cesar Lopez wins hands down.

If vendor donations also stop going to Carlos Elizondo, Cata could find herself alone on the Board.  This is important for 2 years from now.  With no meaningful pathway to a majority 2 years from now, no vendor will donate to her campaign.  She will be gone for good.  Joe Rodriguez can run in 2 years.  The Board will become more civil and the reputation of BISD will be enhanced.

But no, Otty will never allow for the right thing.  He will push this to his and Carl Montoya's detriment in court, all the while gambling on losing the majority to Cata.

When Mary Rey wins this in court, the good news will be - Otis Powers is done at BISD for his conduct in this mess.


No comments: