Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In this original mandamus proceeding, Reverend Marion Barnett seeks to require the DISD and secretary of the board of trustees of the DISD, Nancy Bingham, to place his name on the ballot as a candidate for DISD Trustee, District Six. Barnett omitted his street address from his permanent residence address on his application and instead provided that information in the adjacent space reserved for a separate mailing address. HOLDING:Conditionally granted. As in In Re: Bell, 91 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. 2002), the respondents in this case do not dispute that the application contains Barnett’s voter registration number and that the voter registration records indicate that Barnett resides in District Six. They cite authority that voter registration records may not be conclusive evidence of one’s residence. But, in this case, Barnett signed a sworn statement that he resides in District Six, and the voter registration records confirm that undisputed fact. Respondents have not identified any public records indicating that Barnett does not reside in District Six. DISD and Bingham argue that they have no authority to inquire into facts outside the application; therefore, because Barnett omitted the street name and number from his residence address, they cannot confirm that he resides in District Six. They cite Garcia v. Carpenter, 525 S.W.2d 160 (Tex. 1975) (orig. proceeding), and Canady v. Democratic Executive Committee of Travis County, 381 S.W.2d 321 (Tex. 1964) (orig. proceeding). These cases do not prohibit election authorities from confirming a candidate’s residency based upon information in his application and undisputed public records. Rather, they involve disputes over whether candidates are eligible to hold the office they seek and stand for the proposition that election officials do not have the authority to independently determine disputed questions of fact regarding a candidate’s eligibility. This case does not present such a dispute; respondents have not controverted that Barnett resides in District Six. Further, Garcia is authority for disqualifying a candidate for failure to satisfy residency requirements based on public records including voter registration records. Garcia implies that election officials may determine a candidate’s residency by looking to public records that are “conclusive in nature.” Although voter registration records may not conclusively establish residency, in this case the voter registration records confirm the undisputed fact that Barnett resides in District Six. Having examined the four corners of the application, the court holds that in this case Barnett provided sufficient information in his application to allow respondents to determine that he resides in District Six. OPINION:Per curiam.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.