Hayes v. Harris County Democratic Executive Committee

Decision Date22 March 1978
Docket NumberNo. 1860,1860
Citation563 S.W.2d 884
PartiesRussell HAYES, Relator, v. HARRIS COUNTY DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE et al., Respondents. (14th Dist.)
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Russell Hayes, pro se.

David F. Webb, Leonard, Kohen, Rose, Webb & Hurt, Houston, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for writ of mandamus by which the relator, Russell Hayes, seeks to compel the respondents, the Harris County Democratic Executive Committee and its Chairman, George Q. Buch, to place Hayes' name on the ballot for the Democratic primary election to be held in Harris County, Texas on May 6, 1978.

The relator filed an application for placement of his name on the ballot on February 3, 1978. He was certified by the respondent Buch to the County Clerk of Harris County, Texas on February 13, 1978 as a candidate whose application had been timely filed and accompanied by an appropriate filing fee. The relator subsequently learned that his name had been removed from the ballot for the reason that he is a convicted felon and is therefore an ineligible candidate for public office according to article 1.05 of the Texas Election Code. This court granted him leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus, by which he seeks to compel his reinstatement on the ballot, and arguments were heard thereon.

The relator correctly states the general rule that when an application appears regular on its face, election officials charged with certifying the applicant's name for placement on the ballot have no authority to inquire into facts outside the application. Parker v. Brown, 425 S.W.2d 379, 381 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1968, no writ). Where facts which would disqualify the applicant are conclusively established by public records, however, election officials may not ignore those facts. Garcia v. Carpenter, 525 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex.Sup.1975); McClelland v. Sharp, 430 S.W.2d 518, 522 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (14th Dist.), 1968, no writ); see Tex.Election Code Ann. art. 1.05, § 4 (Supp.1978).

The relator contends that his 1957 felony conviction is not final so as to disqualify him from running for public office because there is currently pending in federal court a collateral attack on that conviction. The relator's argument that the present collateral attack tolls the finality of his conviction for election qualification purposes, however, is without merit. This matter has been previously litigated and decided adversely to the relator. Hayes v. Williams, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Sears v. Bayoud, C-9506
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • February 14, 1990
    ...that McCorkle is ineligible. Meyer may not ignore these facts; he must declare McCorkle ineligible. See Hayes v. Harris County Democratic Executive Committee, 563 S.W.2d 884, 885 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1978, no writ). Section 145.003(g) of the Texas Election Code If a candidate......
  • Witherspoon v. Pouland
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 8, 1990
    ...to inquire into those facts. In support of his action and as authority therefor, respondent relies upon Hayes v. Harris County Democratic Executive Committee, 563 S.W.2d 884 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1978, orig. proceeding), and McClelland v. Sharp, 430 S.W.2d 518 (Tex.Civ.App.--H......
  • In re Bazan
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • March 28, 2008
    ...is not qualified to hold public office, with or without the public's consent. TEX. ELEC. CODE § 141.001; Hayes v. Harris County Democratic Executive Committee, 563 S.W.2d 884, 885 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, no writ). Thus, when the acts in question are themselves disqualifying ......
  • Perez v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • July 16, 1998
    ...a convicted felon was constitutionally barred from holding public office due to a prior felony conviction. Hayes v. Harris County Democratic Executive Comm., 563 S.W.2d 884, 885 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1978, no writ). The Houston court did not explain its reasoning, simply stati......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT