Friday, March 18, 2016

 
JOHN CHAMBERS SUES MORGAN GRAHAM AND CAMERON COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY BEFORE THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT

Remi Garza is also included, but only incidentally so that he receives immediate notice of any stay concerning Morgan Grahams actions.  The SOS lists March 17th as a recommended date for submitting the names to be placed on the ballot, but the date is not set as law.  This is still 20 days out from when the military ballots have to be sent out so there is still time.

I suspect the Texas Supreme Court will ask Remi Garza to give them a hard date as to when the request for the printing of the ballots must go out.  Depending on this date, Chamber's case could be declared moot.

The fundamental problem is with the Texas Legislature.  When the law concerning the mailing of military personnel ballots was enacted a few years ago the Texas Legislature should have changed the runoff date from the 4th Tuesday of May to June. 

Independent of Chambers if you believe fraudulent mail ballots are keeping you off the runoff ballot would you want more than a few days to file your election contest?  Of course you would.  The Texas Legislature really needs to fix this and change the runoff to June.

The SOS in their letter to Morgan Graham told her the Occupation Code is silent as to when a conviction is final.  Under standard statutory construction rules you then look to other statutes.  The Election Code clearly says Chambers conviction is not final until after the appeal and he loses.

Also the Occupation Code Rules are subject to the Texas Administrative Code and that Code is clear that if Chambers is cleared on appeal or is pardoned with a notation the evidence shows he was innocent, he would have no conviction.


(18) Convicted--Has been adjudged guilty of or has had a judgment of guilt entered in a criminal case that has not been set aside on appeal, regardless of whether:

(A) the sentence is subsequently probated and the person is discharged from probation;
(B) the charging instrument is dismissed and the person is released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense; or
 
(C) the person is pardoned, unless the pardon is expressly granted for subsequent proof of innocence. 
 


I have no idea what the Court will do.  The filing was about 2:36 today.  It may be too late for the Court to issue an order to Morgan to Respond by 5 p.m. Monday.

In these type cases if a majority of the court agrees with John Chambers they will issue a Stay mandating his name be placed on the ballot, with an opinion to come at a later date.

We now sit and wait.  The easiest out for the Texas Supreme Court is to say the case is moot because there is no time to complete the review before the printing of the ballots.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Chambers 2 - MORGS 0

Anonymous said...

If you had to choose between Cortez or Rodriguez which would it be Bobby? I'm thinking of just voting Democrat if Chambers isnt on that ballot.

BobbyWC said...

First of all everyone knows I will be voting for Sheriff Lucio. He will win by 60% or more. This battle is about integrity in the ballot access process. Everyone's vote should count. Morgan is only digging her hole deeper with all of her anger in her posts. Will she resign if Chambers win which then have the Texas Supreme Court declaring Chambers follows the law and Morgan does not?

I have no idea what the Texas Supreme Court will do. I do know based on the docket entry they read his mandamus before they ordered Morgan to file a Response. I am sure her attorneys are working this weekend to find an argument she is correct.

To remove his name from the ballot she used the primary rule after the election. There is only one way to remove a candidate from the results after the deadline to remove them from the ballot. That is a lawsuit.

The primary deadline passed before the vote, so she could not administratively remove him. Her only choice was to sue for removal and she did not.

But the court may find that the limbo area after the vote and before the canvas allows for declaring a candidate administratively ineligible so that their votes cannot be used to declare a winner or a candidate in the run-offs. I nor any number of people can find a law which allows for such a result. But the court can say it is implied.

And as the law says after being elected he has two years to secure his peace officers license. the law also says if he is acquitted on appeal he has no conviction. The licensing authority is bound by the Administrative Code especially since the Occupation Code is silent on the issue.

So John has up to two years after he wins to clear his name, or be removed from office.

But like I said, the Texas Supreme Court can just decide there is no time to resolve the issue. A simple denial of the mandamus does not mean they agree with Morgan - it simply means they do not want to deal with it.

A denial with an opinion will make her the hero defending against corruption.

A granting of the mandamus will make her part of the corruption and the one not following the law.

On this one I would not bet a penny on who will win. I have not seen Morgan's response which will be given due consideration. This is more than Morgan has done for Chambers. She has been bashing him since the filing of the mandamus without first consulting her attorneys. This is reckless and a lot of things but not leadership.

If I see an argument which shows she is correct I will post based on her brief she is correct, even before the Supremes rule.

Bobby WC