Court Opinion

ID: 9668849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:28:45.650287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:48.958406
License: Public Domain

WALKER, Justice
(concurring).
It seems to me that any recognition of a power in the county judge to rescind the election order, even where it develops that his initial determination was based on false affidavits, is contrary to the established Texas law and is also unwise as a matter of policy. An announcement that his order has been rescinded will tend to discourage participation by the electorate and could change the results of the election, and yet the judge may be mistaken in his conclusion that the affidavits were false. The matter cannot be made the subject of a judicial inquiry until after the day of the election, and it will then be too late to remedy the harm done by the attempted rescission of the order.
While I would not hold that the judge may rescind his order on the ground that one or more of the affidavits is false, it is my opinion that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in ordering that a writ of mandamus issue directing petitioner to canvass the returns. Mandamus is an extraordinary writ, and its issuance rests largely in the sound discretion of the court. While it is a legal remedy, we have recognized that the writ is governed, in some measure at least, by equitable principles. It will not be granted, for example, where the relators, or one who will be benefitted by issuance of the writ, have been guilty of conduct that is violative of conscience and good faith. Rummler v. Reavley, 156 Tex. 138, 293 S.W.2d 638; Westerman v. Mims, 111 Tex. 29, 227 S.W. 178.
Mandamus issues to remedy a wrong, not to promote one. Turner v. Fisher, 222 U.S. 204, 32 S.Ct. 37, 56 L.Ed. 165. While relators may have been guilty of no wrong whatsoever, I would not issue the writ to compel the completion of a political process that was launched by false affidavits. *217I agree that the writ should not issue if petitioner proves that he was induced to make his determination of the number of inhabitants in the area by false affidavits, and I concur in the judgment of reversal and remand.
DANIEL and SAM D. JOHNSON, JJ„ join in this concurring opinion.