Court Opinion

ID: 9691018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:02:05.993696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:09.019830
License: Public Domain

KENNETH R. CARR, Justice,
dissenting.
The election results for the November 2006 election show that 51 votes were cast in the election for Loving County Commissioner, Precinct 3, all by write-in. Zane Kiehne received 26 votes and Thomas E. Jones, 25. In the course of Jones’ election contest, the trial court found that 30 of those votes, a clear majority, were cast by ineligible voters.1 Acting pursuant to the authority given it in Tex.Elec.Code Ann. § 221.009(b), the trial court set the election aside and ordered that a new election be conducted. No party has appealed the Section 221.009(b) portion of the trial court’s order.
By his appeal, Zane seeks, instead, to remove three names (Baeza, Varela, and Holly (“the Kiehne voters”))2 from the list of voters who were found to have been ineligible in November 2006. The only other affirmative relief which he seeks is a ruling by this Court that three voters found eligible by the trial court should have been found to have been ineligible.3
Jones correctly argues that Zane’s appeal is moot. If, as Zane urges, the three “Kiehne voters” are added back to the eligibility list as of November 2006, the number of voters found to have been ineligible will be reduced to twenty-seven, a number which is still ample to have changed the outcome of the election.4
*268Given Loving County’s history of close and contentious elections, the majority believe that this Court should opine on some of the issues raised in this proceeding, even though they are not necessary for our disposition of this appeal, because the parties will likely be back here after the rerun election.5 The majority’s premise in this regard may well prove correct, but we have no power to speculate about future events, in order to offer our advise to the parties. In Brownsville Indep. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Trs. v. Brownsville Herald, 831 S.W.2d 537, 538-39 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1992, no writ), the Court observed:
Courts are created not for purposes of deciding abstract or academic questions of law or to render advisory opinions, but solely for judicial determination of presently existing disputes between parties in which effective judgment can be rendered.
[Emphasis in original](quoted, without supplied emphasis, in Caddel v. Bright, No. 08-03-00336-CV, 2004 WL 1172337, at *1 (Tex.App.-El Paso May 25, 2004, no pet.)(not designated for publication)).
Neither party has appealed the trial court’s order directing a new election. Therefore, nothing we decide herein regarding the eligibility of the Kiehne voters or the Carr family can affect the results of the 2006 election; by a final and unap-pealed order of the trial court, those results are null and void. Even more fundamentally, nothing we decide today with regard to any “presently existing ” dispute can have -any effect on the future rerun election.
With regard to one’s eligibility to vote in Texas, the Legislature has provided:
§ 11.001. Eligibility to Vote
(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, to be eligible to vote in an election in this state, a person must:
(1) be a qualified voter as defined by Section 11.002 on the day the person offers to vote;
(2) be a resident of the territory covered by the election for the office or measure on which the person desires to vote;
(3) satisfy all other requirements for voting prescribed by law for the particular election.
(b) For a person who resides on property located in more than one territory described in Subsection (a)(2), the person shall choose in which territory the residence of the person is located.
Tex.Elec.Code Ann. § 11.001 [emphasis added]. Therefore, a person who was ineligible to vote on November 7, 2006, may or may not still be ineligible to vote today.6 Neither of those facts is determinative of the controlling question, which is whether he will be ineligible on the day he offers to vote in the rerun election.
*269To vote in the upcoming election, a person must be an eligible voter in Loving County and a resident7 of Precinct 3 on the day he offers to vote. Neither this Court nor either of the candidates can predict with assurance who will be eligible to vote at that time.
I respectfully believe that this appeal presents no justiciable issue to this Court. I would therefore dismiss the appeal and return the proceeding to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its earlier order.

. No party has challenged the trial court's determination that twenty-seven of the voters, whose names are specified in the trial court's order, were ineligible to vote in Loving County in November 2006. The trial court’s finding as to those individuals’ eligibility as of that date is therefore final. Similarly, its unchallenged determination that thirteen others (sixteen, excluding three members of the Carr family discussed below) were eligible is likewise final.

. Although the trial court found it unnecessary to order any voter to identify under oath the candidate for whom he voted, the parties have assumed that the three “Kiehne voters” voted for Zane, and I will work on that assumption.

. Zane asks this Court to add three members of the Carr family (husband, wife, and adult daughter) to the list of those whom the trial court found to have been ineligible. I will likewise accept the parties' assumption that all three members of the Carr family voted for Jones, who is Mrs. Carr’s brother. (The undersigned is not related to this Carr family.)

. In a “best case” scenario for Zane (based on the issues he has brought forward to this Court), to wit, deeming the three Kiehne vot*268ers to have been eligible and deleting the votes of the Carr family members, Zane’s lead would have been 26-22.

. This is an obvious effort to invoke the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine. The Texas Supreme Court has limited application of this exception to lawsuits which "challenge unconstitutional acts performed by the government.” General Land Office of the State of Texas v. OXY U.S.A., Inc., 789 S.W.2d 569, 571 (Tex.1990). No such constitutional challenges are made in this proceeding. Moreover, if any candidate chooses to contest the results of the rerun election, Texas law provides ample opportunity for him to seek review by way of appeal.

. Of course, the converse is also possible. One who is currently eligible to vote may change his circumstances such that he becomes ineligible to do so by the date of the new election.

. As defined, inter alia, in Section 11.001(b).