Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:On Oct. 28, 2002, the appellant, Darrel Cox, filed this suit against the appellees, William Wade Zedler, Governor Rick Perry, and Secretary of State Gwyn Shea to declare Zedler ineligible to take office for State Representative District 96 and to enjoin Perry and Shea from issuing a certificate of election. On Oct. 31, 2002, the trial court granted a temporary injunction enjoining Zedler’s certification. On Nov. 5, 2002, Zedler won the general election. On Nov. 19, 2002, the trial court denied Cox’s application for permanent injunction and granted the appellees’ motion to dismiss and plea to the jurisdiction, vacating the temporary injunction and dismissing the case. HOLDING:Affirmed. Quo warrantor proceedings are brought by the state of Texas to challenge a person’s right to hold a public office; such proceedings have been authorized by statute since 1879. It is the exclusive remedy afforded to the public to protect itself against the usurpation or unlawful occupancy of a public office by an illegal occupancy. Norville v. Parnell, 118 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. App. � Dallas 2003, pet. denied), also involved an appeal of a losing candidate in the November 5, 2002 general election. Norville and Parnell were candidates for Kaufman County Court at Law Judge. Unofficial results showed that Norville defeated the incumbent, Parnell. Parnell then sought and obtained a judgment declaring Norville ineligible for office and enjoining her from being declared winner. The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that Parnell did not have standing because the issue of a winning candidate’s eligibility is a matter of public concern and must be prosecuted by the state in a writ of quo warrantor. Under the facts of this case, Zedler’s eligibility to take office as State Representative District 96 is a matter of public concern. Cox is not challenging the results of the election; rather, he acknowledges he was defeated by Zedler. In his petition, he sued “as candidate for State Representative, District 96.” The only harm he alleged was that he “is being harmed or is in danger of being harmed by a violation” of the election code if Perry and Shea declared Zedler the winner. Any such harm, in our view, is not distinct from harm to the general public. Thus, the limited and temporary interest that a candidate for office has is not the type that gives rise to individual standing in a post-election case involving a matter of public concern such as the eligibility of the winning candidate. The court concludes that whether a candidate who received the majority of the votes in a general election is eligible to be certified as winner of the election is exclusively a matter of public concern. The court concludes that any post-election suit challenging the winning candidate’s eligibility must be prosecuted by the state in a writ of quo warrantor. Consequently, Cox does not have standing to bring this suit. OPINON:Dauphinot, J.; Dauphinot and Gardner, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.