Democratic Party Attempts To Silence The Voices Of 92,000 Texans
Facts relating to the legal wrangling over the Texas Green Party's ballot access effort in chronological order:
During the specified period of March 10 through May 23, signatures were collected by petitioners; some petition signature gatherers were paid by Free & Equal, a petition-gathering company, and funded by a non-profit, 501(c)(4) corporation. The Green Party of Texas received no money from a corporate source. Without exception, no petition signers were paid for signing the petition.
On May 24, petitions bearing over 90,000 signatures were turned in to the Texas Secretary of State's office to supplement lists of precinct convention attendees. At that time, the Green Party was not aware that donations for signature collection were given through an incorporated entity.
On June 9, the Secretary of State certified that the Green Party had satisfied requirements to be on the ballot by virtue of turning in lists of precinct convention attendees and supplemental petition signatures.
On June 10, the Texas Democratic Party obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) to keep the Green Party State Chair from certifying statewide nominees with the Secretary of State. (The TRO was voluntarily signed by the Green Party without benefit of legal counsel.)
On June 12, as specified by state law, elections for nominees of the Green Party were held at the state convention. Four statewide nominees were elected:
Deb Shafto - Governor
Herb Gonzales, Jr - Lt Governor
Art Browning - Railroad Commissioner
Ed Lindsay - Comptroller of Public Accounts
On June 22, Judge John Dietz donated $7500 to the Travis County Democratic Party.
On June 24, Judge John Dietz ruled in favor of the Texas Democratic Party and upheld the injunction against certifying nominees at a hearing in Travis County 353rd District Courts.
On June 28, the Texas Green Party and statewide nominees filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Texas Supreme Court in order to uphold the rights of duly elected nominees to appear on the ballot.
On July 2, the Supreme Court of Texas stayed the injunction of Judge Dietz. With the injunction removed, the Green Party certified its four statewide nominees with the Texas Secretary of State
On July 7, TDP filed a motion with the Texas Supreme Court conceding that their request for an injunction against the Green Party is moot.
GPTX attorneys responded on July 8. In addition to agreeing that the injunction against ballot access for the Green Party is a moot point, GPTX requested that TDP claims for declaratory and injunctive relief be dismissed with prejudice.(Legal definition of "with prejudice": "When a case is dismissed for good reason and the plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same claim." From the online legal lexicon, lectlaw.com)
On July 9 GPTX filed a brief, as requested by the Supreme Court in its July 2 ruling, outlining the facts, applicable law, and legislative history relevant to the case. The Green Party expects that a Supreme Court ruling will clarify the difference between normal operating activities of a new political party and campaign expenses of candidates and officeholders.
The full facts of the, as yet unserved, lawsuit Texas Democratic Party et al. vs Texas Green Party et al. are scheduled to be litigated in a January 17, 2011, trial.
