This is curious.
Rep. Dan Huberty
State Rep. Dan Huberty’s only primary challenger was on Friday declared ineligible to run to represent House District 127.
In a summary judgment, Harris County District Court Judge Bill Burke declared Reginald C. Grant Jr. did not meet the residency requirement outlined in the state’s Election Code.
Grant’s name will remain on the ballot. Should he win the March 6 primary, district precinct chairs will vote on a replacement candidate.
[…]
Huberty’s attorneys first filed suit after discovering through public documents that Grant had not lived in the district for six continuous months prior to filing for candidacy, as required by the Election Code.
According to court documents, Grant is currently undergoing a divorce. In March 2017, he moved out of his estranged wife’s Huffman house — which is owned by her father and which Grant listed as his permanent address on his filing papers. The candidate is currently staying with his father outside of the district.
Blakemore told the Texas Tribune that the state law’s definition of a “residence” includes where an individual “intends” to live, and Grant has said he will return to the district. But Blakemore said Grant has no claim to his permanent address because he isn’t the property’s owner.
[Grant’s attorney Tom] Zakes said Thursday that Grant still uses the Huffman address for his driver’s license and voter registration. He said it doesn’t matter who owns the Huffman house because Grant’s intended residence will remain the same until the candidate determines a new residence by changing his address on those documents.
“Will he ever move back to the house? I can’t tell you that,” Zakes said. “He intends to go back either to that specific residence or to somewhere else in the district.”
There’s no Democrat on the ballot in HD127, and I have no particular interest in who the Republican is, though I do have respect for Huberty for his work on public education. I am also Not A Lawyer and claim no technical knowledge here. But I have to ask, how is it that this case defines what the boundaries of the “your residency is where you intend to live” standard are? It’s very much an open secret that a non-trivial number of legislators don’t actually live where they claim to live. And as you know, I’m okay with that standard for residency being loosey-goosey. Given the way things have always been, I have a hard time seeing why this case was worthy of summary judgment in favor of rejecting Grant’s candidacy. At the very least, let’s fight this out in a full trial. And if this is the standard, then let’s do some checking and see who among the current cop of elected officials may fail to meet it. Maybe then we’ll get some real clarity.