Reversed and Rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed June 8 , 2023.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00091

- CV

JANE NELSON , IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellant

V. NEAL DIKEMAN, SHAWN KELLY, ROY ERIKSEN, J A RE D WISSEL, SCOTT FORD, BILLY PIERCE, CHRISTINA FORD, CHARLIE STEVENS, AND NEKO ANTONIOU , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 11th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 76841

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Jane Nelson , in her official c ap a city as S ecretary of the State of
Texas , 1 appeals from the denial of her motion to dissolve a temporary injunction

1 The o f fice holder of the Secretary of S t ate of Texas has change d several times during this case. We have substituted the current offic eholder for the prior officeholde r s named in the trial court and on appeal. See Tex. R. App. 7.2(a.).2 after the Legislature amend ed the statute upon which the injunction was based. We agree with the Secretary that the trial court abused i t s di scretion by not dissolving the injunction. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court ’ s order and
render a judgment d issolving the temporary injunction

.
I. B ACKGROUND This appeal is the second regarding a temporary injunction against th e Secretary. Appel l e e s were member s and candidat e s within Texas ’ s Libertar ian part y. T he Secretary issued an advi sory that required cand idates nominated by

conv ention , such as appellee s , to pay a filing fee or submit a petition in lieu thereof by a date that pr edated a nomi n at ion con vention

. App ellees sought, and the trial court granted, a temporary i njunction that enj oins the Secretary from ref using to accept or rejecting applications for n omination from third

- party candidates and refusing to certify third

- party nominee s f o r a general election ballot on the grounds
that the applica nts and nominees did not pay a filing fee or submit a petition in lieu thereof at the time of filing. See Hughs v. Dikeman , 631 S.W.3d 362 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. denied )

. Thi s c our t affirmed the temporary injunction in p art , reasoning that the Secretary ’ s advisory conflicted with the section of the Election Code that was applic able at the time because the requirement of a filing fee or petition only applied to candidates who h ad act ually been nominated at a convention, bu t the Secretary ’ s advisory proposed applying the requirement to candidates seeking nomination by conv ention , i.e., candidates who had not yet been nominated

. See Hughs , 631 S.W.3d at 381 (citing Tex. Elec. Cod e § 14 1.041(a) ) ( “ The Advisory
therefore excee ds the bounds of authority granted under section 141.041

. ” ). 2

2 This court reviewed o t her rulings of the trial court and modified the temporary injunction, noting that candidates who ul timately secure their party ’ s nomination as a result of3 At the ti me of the trial court ’ s temporary injunction and th e p rior appeal, the applica ble statute provided : (a) In addition to any other requireme nt s , t o be eligible to be placed on the ballot for the general election for state and county offices, a candidate who is nominated by co nvention under Chapter 181 or 182 must: (1) pay a filing fee to the secretary of state for a statewide or district offic e o r t he county judge for a county or precinct office; or (2) submit to the secretary of state for a statewide or district office or the county judge for a county or precinct officer a petition in lieu of a filing fee that satisfies the requirements prescr ib e d b y Subsection (e) and Section 141.062.

Ac t of May 20, 2019, 8 6 th Leg. , R

. S., ch. 822, § 1 , 2019 Tex. Gen. Laws 2282 (amended and transferred 2021) (current version at Tex. Elec. Code § 181.0311) ( emphasis added)

. Based on the language in the statute, t h is court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by enjoining the Secretary “ insofar as the Advisory required complia nce with section 141.041 ’ s fee/petition requirements by
minor

- party candidates who have not been nominated by the convent io n pr ocess. ” Hughs , 631 S.W.3d at 362 . Th is court explained fu rther, “ Candidates who ultimately secured their party ’ s nomination as a result of the convention process, however, must comply with section 1 41.041. ” Id.
Subsequently, t he Legislature amend ed sub section (a) of th e statute : (a) In addition to any other requirements, to be con sidered for nomi nation by conv en tion , a candidate must: Act of May 13, 2021, 87 th Leg., R. S., ch. 149, 2021 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 149

the convention process must then comply with the Election Code by paying th e filing fee or submitt in g a petition. See Hughs , 631 S.W.3d at 383 . After remand, the trial court issued an amended temporary injunctio n that was consistent with this court ’ s mandate.4 (to be codified at Tex. Elec. Cod e § 18 1.0311(a)) (emphasis added)

. The Secretary filed a motion to dissolve the temporary injunction, arguing that there ha d been a material change in the law because the Election Code now requires candidates to comply with the petition/fee requirement be fo r e a ny nominating convention.

The trial court denied the motion, and the Secretary appeals.

II. A NALYSIS

In their sole issue on appeal, the Se cretary contends that a changed
circ umstance

— amendment of the statute

— compel s dissolution of the temporary injunct io n ag ainst enforcement of the fee /petition requirement for political candidates. Appellee Eriksen respond s 3 that (1) no change in the law renders the temporary injunction unnecessary or improper; (2) the amendmen t did not change the circumstances regardi ng the adviso ry , which remains an ultra vires act inconsistent with current law; (3) Eriksen ’ s pending motion to enforce the temporary injunction precludes dissolution ; and (4) th e S ecretary ’ s appeal seeks to
have this court prejudge the constitutionality of the new law.

A. Standard of Review
We generally review a trial court ’ s grant o f a temporary injunction for an
abuse of discretion. Jelinis , LLC v. Hiran , 557 S.W.3d 159, 165 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) . However, we will apply a de no v o

s tandard of review when the issue turns on a pure question of law. Id. Statutory interpretation involves questions of law that we consider de novo. Aleman v. Tex.

3 The other appellees did not file a brief. Although some of the appel lees were omitted fro m t he detailed l ist of parties in subsequent amended petitions, they remained listed as parties in the cap tion

. See Abram cik v. U.S. Home Corp. , 792 S.W.2d 822, 824 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied) ( “ Although we agree the omission of a d e f

endant acts as a voluntary dismissal, we find the ‘ omission ’ rule inapplicable to plaintiffs who have been individually named in prior pleading s and have been gene rically referred to in a subsequent pleading. ” ).5 Med. Bd. , 57 3 S.W.3d 796, 802 (Tex. 2019).

B. Chang ed Circumstances
A trial court may d i ss o lve a temporary injunction upon a showing of changed circu mstances. Gruss v. Gallagher , No. 14

- 21

- 00178

- CV , 2023 WL 1975016, at *13 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 14, 2023, no pet. h.). Changed circumstances may include a change in the law that ma k es the temporary injunction unnecessary or improper. Id.
In the prior appeal in this case, this court upheld the temporary injunction on
the bas is that the forme r statute conflicted with the Secretary ’ s adv isory that required appellees to comply wit h t h e f ee/petition requirement before they were nominated by con vention because the statute only applied to a candidate “ who is
nomi nated

. ” See Hughs , 631 S.W.3d at 381, 383 (citing former Tex. Elec. Code § 141.041)

. The amended statute, however, requ ires a can didate to comply with the fee/petition re quirement “ to be consid ered for nomination. ” Tex. Elec. Code § 181.0311(a)

. Thus, the amended fee /petition requi rement applies as a prerequisite to nomination rather than on ly after a c andidate is actually n om i nated. Cf. Hughs, 631 S.W.3d at 381. This change in the law nullifies th is court ’ s basis for upholding the temporary injunction. See id. at 383. T hus, the change in the law makes the temporary injunction improper. The trial court erred by not
dis so lv i ng the injunction.

C. Motion to Enforce

Eriksen contends that he filed a motion to enforce the temporary injunction,

so the injunction is “ necessary and should stay in place until the Secretary ’ s violation of the injunction is addressed by the trial court. ” Eriks en cites n o authority in support of this argument , and we see no reason the temporary6 injunction must remain in place for the court to address any violations that may
ha ve occurred while the temporary injunction was valid. Cf. Propst v. Propst , No

. N o. 13

- 18

- 00291

- CV , 2019 WL 5609964, at * 3

– 4 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi

– Edinburgh Oct. 31, 2019, no pet. ) (mem. op.) ( reasoning that a pending motion for contempt prevented conclusion that appeal was moot even if injunction had expired).

D. Underlying Merits

F i nally , Eriksen contends that the Secretary ’ s appeal is an attempt to have this court prejudge the constitutionality of the new law. The Secr etary contends that it is not asking for any relief that w ould dispose of the case below and is not asking this co u rt to address any claims asserted in Eriksen ’ s live pleading.
We agree with the Secretary. We do not address any issue other than
wheth er the change in the law vitiate s the temporary injunction. We do not address in this appeal any of Eri ksen ’ s consti t u t ional challenges to the amended statute

.
III. C ONCLUSION

The Secre tary ’ s sole issue is sustained. The trial court erred by not dissolving the temporary injunction following the change in the law . The trial

court ’ s January 1, 202 2 order denying the Secretar y ’ s motion to dissolve is reversed, and we render a judgment dissolving the September 15, 2020 amended temporary injunction.

/s/ K en Wise J ustic e

Panel con sists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant.