CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/6/2023 1

Electioneering on County Property 

Gonzalez Garza v. Starr County 

(Randy Crane, S.D. Tex. 7:18-cv-46) 

A federal district judge declared unconstitutionally vague an apparent proscription against electioneering on county-owned property 

adjacent to voting locations, finding that the apparent order was expressed merely as a desire. Litigation continued for three years during several amendments to the policy, several amendments to the 

complaint, and additional rulings by the judge. A final settlement 

brought the action to an end. 

Subject: Campaign activities. Topics: Campaign materials; early 

voting. 

Two voters, one active in the Democratic Party and one active in the Republican Party, filed a federal complaint in the Southern District of Texas’s McAllen 

courthouse on Wednesday, February 21, 2018, against Starr County and its 

election officials to challenge a proscription against electioneering on countyowned property—including property adjacent to early-voting locations—during the March 6 primary election and the November 6 general election.1

 The 

voters filed an application for a temporary restraining order on February 22.2

That day, Judge Randy Crane set the case for hearing on Monday.3 Although 

one of the defendants asked on Saturday for a continuance because of the tight 

time frame,4 Judge Crane conducted the hearing as originally scheduled.5

The order that triggered the case stated, “the Commissioners Court of 

Starr County finds that it desires to regulate the time, place and manner of 

electioneering by prohibiting electioneering during any ‘voting period’ . . . in 

or on property owned or under the care, custody and control of the County of 

Starr.”6

 At the hearing, Judge Crane questioned whether a statement of desire 

was an order.7

 Following testimony and argument, Judge Crane concluded 

that “a document that expresses only the desires of the county [which] contains no language actually adopting any order or rule” is unconstitutionally 

1. Complaint, Gonzalez Garza v. Starr County, No. 7:18-cv-46 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2018), 

D.E. 1; see Second Amended Complaint, id. (May 1, 2018), D.E. 29; First Amended Complaint, 

id. (Apr. 2, 2018), D.E. 24; see also Molly Smith, Lawsuit Challenges Starr County’s Electioneering Ban, McAllen Monitor, Feb. 22, 2018. 

2. First Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, Gonzalez Garza, No. 7:18-cv-46 (S.D. Tex. 

Feb. 22, 2018), D.E. 4. 

3. Order, id. (Feb. 22, 2018), D.E. 5. 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Crane for this report by telephone on September 17, 2018. 

4. Continuance Motion, Gonzalez Garza, No. 7:18-cv-46 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2018), D.E. 9; 

Transcript at 5, id. (Feb. 26, 2018, filed Mar. 9, 2018), D.E. 19 [hereinafter Feb. 26, 2018, Transcript]. 

5. Feb. 26, 2018, Transcript, supra note 4. 

6. Ex. A, First Temporary-Restraining-Order Brief, Gonzalez Garza, No. 7:18-cv-46 (S.D. 

Tex. Feb. 22, 2018), D.E. 4. 

7. Feb. 26, 2018, Transcript, supra note 4, at 6–10. 
Electioneering on County Property 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/6/2023 

vague as something that could be enforced against an individual.8

On February 28, Judge Crane enjoined, “until the merits of this case are 

decided,” any proscription on electioneering in county-owned common areas 

outside a 100-foot buffer around polling places.9 Judge Crane did not enjoin 

“reasonable restrictions in light of the primary purpose served by the fora”: 

proscriptions on setting up electioneering tents and barbeque pits in parking 

lots.10

As a May 22 runoff primary election approached, and following new statements of electioneering control issued on April 11 and May 9, the plaintiffs 

sought leave on May 20 to file a third amended complaint,11 and they filed a 

second application for a temporary restraining order on May 21.12 Judge Crane 

scheduled a hearing for June 5.13 Following the hearing, Judge Crane gave the 

county thirty days to refine their electioneering controls, after which the plaintiffs would have thirty days to amend their complaint again.14 A fourth 

amended complaint was filed on July 25,15 and a fifth amended complaint was 

filed on August 23.16

The quality of the lawyering in the case was good, which was a pleasure for 

Judge Crane.17 On one side of the case was one of his former law clerks, and 

on the other side was a former law clerk of another judge in the courthouse.18

Changes in county policy to accommodate the plaintiffs’ concerns and the 

court’s concerns resulted in frequent amendments to the complaint. Although 

this presented Judge Crane with a moving target,19 it was also a process that 

8. Id. at 103; see Berenice Garcia, Judge Issues Preliminary Order on Starr Electioneering 

Ban, McAllen Monitor, Feb. 26, 2018. 

9. Gonzalez Garza v. Starr County, 309 F. Supp. 3d 454 (S.D. Tex. 2018); see Berenice Garcia, Judge Blocks Part of Starr County Electioneering Rules, McAllen Monitor, Feb. 28, 2018. 

10. Gonzalez Garza, 309 F. Supp. 3d at 458. 

11. Amended-Complaint Motion, Gonzalez Garza, No. 7:18-cv-46 (S.D. Tex. May 20, 

2018), D.E. 35; Minutes, id. (May 22, 2018), D.E. 38; see Transcript, id. (May 2, 2018, filed May 

14, 2018), D.E. 32 (status conference including a discussion of electioneering-policy revisions). 

12. Second Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, id. (May 21, 2018), D.E. 36. 

13. Order, id. (May 22, 2018), D.E. 39. 

“There were some scheduling issues, I probably would have set it earlier, but here it is 

now.” Transcript at 3, id. (June 5, 2018, filed July 12, 2018), D.E. 54 [hereinafter June 5, 2018, 

Transcript] (remarks by Judge Crane). 

14. Order, id. (June 5, 2018), D.E. 53; see June 5, 2018, Transcript, supra note 13, at 9 (Judge 

Crane’s observing, “the Plaintiffs I feel need to re-plead with greater specificity”); see also Berenice Garcia, Judge Denies Order Blocking Starr County Policies, McAllen Monitor, June 7, 

2018. 

15. Fourth Amended Complaint, Gonzalez Garza, No. 7:18-cv-46 (S.D. Tex. July 25, 2018), 

D.E. 56; see Transcript at 2–4, id. (Aug. 17, 2018, filed Aug. 28, 2018), D.E. 64 [hereinafter 

Aug. 17, 2018, Transcript]. 

16. Fifth Amended Complaint, id. (Aug. 23, 2018), D.E. 63. 

17. Interview with Hon. Randy Crane, Sept. 17, 2018.

18. Id.; Aug. 17, 2018, Transcript, supra note 15, at 24 (Aug. 17, 2018, filed Aug. 28, 2018), 

D.E. 64 (“Always nice seeing former law clerks in court.”). 

19. June 5, 2018, Transcript, supra note 13, at 7 (Judge Crane’s observing, “we have a little 

bit of a moving target here”). 
Electioneering on County Property 

Federal Judicial Center 10/6/2023 3

moved the situation toward a just result.20 Changes in circumstances also 

tended to give the court a break in time pressure, because the plaintiffs needed 

time to examine the changes.21

On November 6, 2019, Judge Crane found unconstitutionally vague a proscription on electioneering activities that distract drivers, but otherwise found 

constitutional the county’s latest version of its electioneering policies.22

The parties stipulated dismissal of the action as settled on May 12, 2021.23

20. Interview with Hon. Randy Crane, Sept. 17, 2018. 

21. Id. 

22. Opinion, Gonzalez Garza v. Starr County, No. 7:18-cv-46 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2019), D.E. 

117. 

23. Stipulation, id. (May 12, 2021), D.E. 146.