The last of the vacancies to be filled at this time.
Rep. Leo Pacheco
Gov. Greg Abbott has picked Sept. 28 as the date of the special election to replace former state Rep. Leo Pacheco, D-San Antonio.
The candidate filing deadline is Monday, and early voting starts Sept. 20.
Pacheco resigned effective Aug. 19 to take a job with San Antonio College.
House District 118 is anchored in San Antonio and covers parts of Bexar County south and east of the city. It is a Democratic-friendly district, though Republicans have already made clear they are eyeing it in the special election.
See here for some background. I did not note the HD10 special election that happened earlier this month and is now headed for a runoff. As this moment, the count is 82 Republicans and 66 Democrats, with the former about to tick up. As we know, a Republican won the last HD118 special election, but it was one of those weird early-in-an-even-year races where there was basically nothing at stake, and turnout was dismal. Now-former Rep. Pacheco easily won it back in the regular 2016 election. HD118 is slightly more Democratic as of 2020 than it was in 2016, though it remains potentially competitive in another weird turnout situation. The next special session will be in full swing when this race happens, but the same may not be true for the runoff, which is all but assured with at least two Dems and two Republicans so far running. This one could go any number of ways.
35 days and counting………
In other election-related news, the SCOTX this morning (9/17/2021) denied the Hotze Et Al’s most recent Election Code Mandamus. Justice Devine dissented, but didn’t explain why. This was the complaint by Hotze about having received an unsolicited application for a mail-in ballot as a person over 65 years of age.
In re Hotze, No. 21-0751 (Tex. Sep. 9, 2021)(orig. proc.)(denied)
The Harris County Attorney’s Office did a very fine job with their response on behalf Respondent, Elections Administrator Longoria, pointing to federal District Judge Andrew Hanen’s lack-of-standing disposition in last year’s suit by Dr. Hotze and others over the drive-thru ballots. The SCOTX didn’t dismiss for lack of standing, however. They just denied without giving a reason. You can look up the docket sheet using the case number to see Woodfill’s petition and the response & motion to dismiss by Harris County.
—–
THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
Orders Pronounced September 17, 2021
THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ARE DENIED:
21-0751
IN RE STEVEN HOTZE, M.D., HON. SID MILLER, GERRY MONROE, RANDOLPH PRICE, ALAN HARTMAN, ALAN VERA, AND GREGORY BLUME
relators’ emergency motion for temporary relief denied
See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(e)
Justice Devine dissents from the Court’s denial of the petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion for temporary relief.
—-
Commentorial Note: Comments were closed on prior post on this topic.
See here http://www.offthekuff.com/wp/?p=101932
Ha … did we just catch Kibitzer making a mistake?
The Supreme Court DID give reason: “Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(e)”
This is “code” for failure to first seek relief in the court of appeals. Why should the Supreme Court — of all government institutions — make it easy for journalists, not to mention the nonlawyers-at-large, to divine the meaning of its rulings?
THE RULE VERBATIM:
(e) Statement of Jurisdiction. The petition must state, without argument, the basis of the court’s jurisdiction. If the Supreme Court and the court of appeals have concurrent jurisdiction, the petition must be presented first to the court of appeals unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. If the petition is filed in the Supreme Court without first being presented to the court of appeals, the petition must state the compelling reason why the petition was not first presented to the court of appeals.
Full set of rules here:
https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1450218/texas-rules-of-appellate-procedure-updated-with-amendments-effective-112021-with-appendices.pdf