Opinion ID: 2381585
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: This court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition and to issue the writ by virtue of the Texas Election Code, section 273.061, which provides: Jurisdiction The supreme court or a court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus to compel the performance of any duty imposed by law in connection with the holding of an election or a political party convention, regardless of whether the person responsible for performing the duty is a public officer TEX.ELEC.CODE § 273.061 (Vernon 1986), and section 161.009, which provides: Party Officer Subject to Mandamus The performance of a duty placed by this code on an officer of a political party is enforceable by writ of mandamus in the same manner as if the party officer were a public officer. Tex.Elec.Code § 161.009 (Vernon 1986). Respondents contend that this court does not have jurisdiction, asserting that Texas Election Code, section 273.063(a), and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 121(a)(1) require a mandamus proceeding to first be filed in the court of appeals. Section 273.063(a) of the Election Code does not require that an original petition for writ of mandamus be filed in the court of appeals prior to filing in the supreme court. Section 273.063 concerns venue and merely provides in which court of appeals district the petition must be filed if the relator chooses to file in the court of appeals. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 121(a)(1) provides: When the court of appeals is authorized to exercise concurrent jurisdiction over an original proceeding, the motion should first be presented to the court of appeals. The motion for leave to file in the supreme court shall state the date of presentation of the petition to the court of appeals and that court's action on the motion or petition or the compelling reason that a motion was not first presented to the court of appeals. TEX.R.APP.P. 121(a)(1) (emphasis added). The rule does not stand as an absolute bar to the filing of a petition in the supreme court without having first filed in the court of appeals. See also Love v. Wilcox, 119 Tex. 256, 28 S.W.2d 515, 520-21 (1930); Westervelt v. Yates, 145 Tex. 38, 194 S.W.2d 395 (1946); Stanford v. Butler, 142 Tex. 692, 181 S.W.2d 269 (1944); Burroughs v. Lyles, 142 Tex. 704, 181 S.W.2d 570 (1944). In Thiel v. Harris County Democratic Executive Committee, 534 S.W.2d 891 (Tex.1976), we granted a petition for writ of mandamus directing the Harris County Democratic Committee to exclude from the primary ballot the name of a candidate for state representative. In Thiel, we reiterated the general rule now embodied in rule 121(a)(1): [o]rdinarily the Court encourages that relief of this nature be sought in the court of civil appeals. Id. at 895. We then explained that the petition was entertained because the matter involved was of statewide application and additionally because there was a conflicting court of appeals decision involving different parties. Id. In his motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus, Sears asserts that the issue before the court is of statewide application. He additionally states that the urgency of the time constraints necessitates immediate review by this court. His motion states that if this dispute is not resolved by final judgment before the beginning of absentee balloting, it may become moot by virtue of section 141.034 of the Election Code, which provides that [a]n application for a place on the ballot may not be challenged for [non]compliance with the applicable requirements as to form and procedure after the day before the beginning of absentee voting by personal appearance.... Tex.Elec.Code § 141.034 (Vernon 1986). Absentee voting for the primary has not yet started. We conclude that Sears has complied with rule 121(a)(1). [1]