### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00272- CV

In re Chris Osborn

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY CONCURRI NG OP INIO N B Y JUSTICE GOO DWI N

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

I n this orig inal proce eding , rela tor Chris Osborn asks th is Co u r t to compel responde nt Susan Br ock, City Clerk for the City of Tay lor, to remove D. Scott Gre en, rea l party in interest, from the ballot in the upcoming elec tion for City Council, district 4, due to Gre en’s residenc y ineligibility under the Texas Election C ode. Osborn, also a candidate for t he same counci l p o s ition, contends that public documents conclusively establish that Gre en is ineligible beca use he did not continuously

r e s id e in th e d is tr ic t f

o r s ix mo n

th s p r io r to th e e le c ti o n f

il in g d e a d li n e a s r e q

u ir e d b y s e c ti o n 1 4 1

. 0 0 1 of the e lection code

. See Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 141.001 (West 2010).

This Court has jurisdiction to consider a reque st for mandamus relief and to “compe l the perf ormanc e of any du t y i m p o s ed b y law in connec tion with the holding of an elec tion

. . . reg ardle ss of whether the person responsible for perf orming the duty is a public office r.” Id

. § 273.061 (West 2010); see also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 20 0 4 ) (“Ea ch court of appea ls may issue a writ of mandamus and all other writs nece ssary to enfor ce t h e j u ri sdiction of the court.” ). This standard is in line with the tradit i o n al u s e o f t he writ of mandamus to compel the perf ormanc e of a minist erial act or duty

. W entworth v. Mey er , 837 S.W .2d 148, 151 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1992, orig

. proce eding ). Consequently , we have no authority to resolve fac tual

disputes. In re Link , 45 S.W .3d 149, 15 2 (T ex. App.—Ty ler 2000, orig

. proce eding ). Fur ther, neither the elec tion code nor our g ene ra l mandamus authority permits us to simply decla re a candida te ineligible. In re Cullar , 320 S.W .3d 560, 565 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, orig

. proce eding ). I nstead, we may issue mandamus only when the rec ord sh o ws t h at t he responde nt has failed to perf orm a “duty imposed by law.” See Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 273.061; see also In re Armendariz , 245 S.W .3d 92, 94 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2008 , o ri g. p roce eding ) (noting that mandamus relief is appropr iate when the rec ord establishes “a clea r abuse of discretion or the violation of a d u t y imposed by law”)

. Additionally , the rela tor must show that a demand for the perf ormanc e was made

a n d d e n ie d

. S

e e A x e ls o n , I

n c . v . M c I lh a n y , 7 9 8 S. W. 2 d 5 5 0 , 5 5 6 ( T e x. 1 9 9 0 ) ( n o ti n g th a t, a s a g e n e r a l rule, mandamus is not available to compel an action that has not first been demande d and ref used). Section 145.003 of the elec ti o n co d e provides the proce dures for obtaining a d eclaration that a candida te is ineligible for office

. See Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 145.00 3 (W es t 2010). A candida te may be decla red ineligible only if: (1) the information on the candida te’s application for a

place on the ballot indicates that the c andidate is inelig ible for office ; or (2) fac ts indicating that the candida te is ineligible are conclusively established by another public rec ord. Id

. § 145.003(f)

. When t h e ap propriate authority is prese nted with an application for a place on the ballot o r an o t h er public rec ord containing information pertinent to a candida te’s elig ibilit y , the appropr iate authority shall promptly revie w the rec ord. Id

. § 145.003(g ). I f the rec ord conclusively establishes that a candida te is ineligible, the authority must decla re the candida te ineligible. Id

. An authority ’s obliga tion to decla re a candida te ineligible when require d to do so under section 145.003 is a “duty imposed by law” and is subject to mandamus relief

. See id

. § 273.061; see also In re
2Sanchez , 366 S.W .3d 255, 257 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 2012, orig

. proce eding ) (explaining that party chair

man had duty to decla

re can d i d ate ineligible if public rec ord established that candida te was inelig ible and, bec ause he did not, mandamus relief would be appr opriate)

. Her e, Osborn contends t hat public rec ords conclusively demonstrate Gre en’s ineligibility , and he has prese nted these rec ords to the Court with his petition for writ of mandamus. However, Osborn does not asser t, and the rec ord provided by Osborn does not show, t h at Br o ck

was prese nted with these public rec ords prior to the filing of this proce eding

. See In re Cullar , 320 S. W. 3 d a t 5 6 6 ( “ T h e ‘ a

p propriate authority ’ cannot make an administrative deter mination of whethe r the public rec ord conclusively establishes i n el i g ibilit y until afte r he has been prese nted with such rec ords.”)

. Acc ording ly , we cannot conclude that Br ock failed t o p er fo rm a duty imposed by law. I n addition, the rec ord does not show that prior to filing this proce eding , Osborn demande d that Br o ck d eclare Gre en ineligible and that Br ock ref used to comply

. Id

. (holding that rela tors must first show that they have demande d perf ormanc e and that authority ref used dem and prior to filing of mandamus). I t is rela tor’s burden to proper ly reque s t and show entitlement to mandamus relief. W alker v. Pack

er , 827 S.W .2d 8 3 3 , 837 (Tex. 1992). I n this reg ard, the rela tor must provide the revie wing court with a r ecor d sufficie nt to establish his rig ht to mandamus relief. In re Mendoza , 131 S.W .3d 167, 168 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig

. proce eding ); see Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)

. Ba sed on the rec ord befor e us, we cannot conclude that Osborn is entitled to mandamus relief

. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice to ref iling. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a)

. 1

At this time, we do not rea ch the question of whether the public rec ords conclusively 1 establish Gre en’s inelig ibilit y . 3__________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Fie ld and Goodwin Concurring Opinion by

J ustice Goodwin Filed: Apr il 30, 2013

4