A judge has allowed a Texas Senate candidate backed by state GOP leaders to keep campaigning amid questions about his eligibility. But she has also declined to dismiss the case, letting it move forward ahead of the March primary.
The mixed news arrived Monday for Brent Hagenbuch, one of four Republican candidates competing to replace retiring Sen. Drew Springer, R-Muenster. Hagenbuch, who has the support of Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, has been battling allegations for weeks that he did not meet the residency requirement when he filed for the office.
The latest ruling from Judge Lee Gabriel came in a lawsuit that one Hagenbuch opponent, Carrie de Moor, has filed in Denton County district court. With the litigation dragging on and the primary closing in, de Moor’s lawyers had sought a long-shot remedy from the judge: a temporary injunction to prevent him from campaigning.
The court told the parties Monday that Gabriel would deny that motion for a temporary injunction. But at the same time, she would deny Hagenbuch’s motion to dismiss the case under Texas’ anti-SLAPP lawsuit.
Hagenbuch’s campaign celebrated the ruling, saying the candidate won “another round” against opponents “who thought they could win this election at the courthouse.” Another Hagenbuch rival, Jace Yarbrough, unsuccessfully sought to get a state appeals court to intervene earlier this month.
But de Moor’s campaign emphasized that Gabriel allowed the case to proceed, clearing the way for depositions, subpoenas and a trial.
“We need Mr. Hagenbuch to come in and raise his right hand and put this to bed,” a de Moor lawyer, Mike Alfred, told The Texas Tribune on Tuesday. “He who has nothing to hide hides nothing, so why won’t he come forward, under oath, and answer questions?”
See here for the background. Again, I don’t have a dog in this fight. Nobody involved is worth rooting for. But I am very interested in the possibility that the court will address the featureless void that is our current definition and enforcement of residency requirements for office. The Constitution is clear enough on this point – candidates for State Senate have to reside in the district they are running to represent for at least a year before the November election. Local statutes covering local offices are similarly concise. The problem is that there is no consensus definition of what it means to “reside” in the district. Which is how we end up with candidates who claim offices, warehouses, bachelor pads, the domiciles of various family members, and any other place where one might semi-plausibly claim to eat and sleep as their “residence” for voter registration and candidacy purposes, even as their claim homestead exemptions elsewhere. Maybe in this case a judge will attempt to draw a boundary. Maybe this judge will just throw up her hands and blame the Legislature for not providing any practical guidance. Either way, I want to see how it turns out.