LEGALESE: IS THE STANTON CANDIDACY ISSUE "MOOT"?

Special to El Rrun-Rrun

To: Bobby (Never Right) Wightman 

Once an election begins, a challenge to the candidacy of an individual becomes moot. See Polk v. Davidson, 145 Tex. 200, 196 S.W.2d 632, 634 (Tex. 1946) ("[W]hen the time comes that the issues cannot be heard and a final judgment entered adjudging the validity or invalidity of the nominee's certificate so that absentee ballots can be printed and available to voters as and when required by statute, the contest is moot and must be dismissed."); see also Skelton v. Yates, 131 Tex. 620, 119 S.W.2d 91, 92 (Tex. 1938); Bejarano v. Hunter, 899 S.W.2d 346, 352 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, orig. proceeding); Law v. Johnson, 826 S.W.2d 794, 797 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no writ); Smith v. Crawford, 747 S.W.2d 938, 940 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988, orig. proceeding).
In re Uresti, 377 S.W.3d 696, 696 (Tex. 2012)

The separation of powers doctrine is related to mootness. See Abbott v. Mex. Am. Leg. Caucus, Tex. House of Representatives, 647 S.W.3d 681, 689 (Tex. 2022). A case is moot when a justiciable controversy does not exist between the parties or when the parties do not have a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. See id.; Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012). 

Courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to decide a moot controversy. Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs. v. N.J., 644 S.W.3d 189, 192 (Tex. 2022). 

In general, a challenge to the electoral process will be considered moot when the validity of the alleged error cannot be finally determined in time for the error to be corrected or, stated otherwise, for the requested task to be substantially accomplished by election officials. See, e.g., In re Uresti, 377 S.W.3d 696, 696 (Tex. 2012) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) ("Once an election begins, a challenge to the candidacy of an individual [**10] becomes moot."); Polk v. Davidson, 145 Tex. 200, 196 S.W.2d 632, 634 (Tex. 1946) 

("[W]hen the time comes that the issues cannot be heard and a final judgment entered adjudging the validity or invalidity of the nominee's certificate so that absentee ballots can be printed and available to voters as and when required by statute, the contest is moot and must be dismissed."); Skelton v. Yates, 131 Tex. 620, 119 S.W.2d 91, 91-92 (Tex. 1938) (orig. proceeding) ("Under the law absentee balloting has begun," thus, "[t]he election therefore is already in progress, and no order which this court might enter [*50] could be effective at this late date to govern such election."); Sterling v. Ferguson, 122 Tex. 122, 53 S.W.2d 753, 761 (Tex. 1932) (per curiam) 

("The courts generally follow the rule that where no date when the authority of a court or other body for exercising a special jurisdiction shall cease, then that it does cease when any judgment which might be entered by the court would become moot—that is to say, when any right which might be determined by the judicial tribunal could not be effectuated in the manner provided by law."); Salazar v. Gonzales, 931 S.W.2d 59, 60 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi—Edinburg 1996, no writ) 

("An election contest becomes moot, and the issues no longer justiciable, when a final judgment adjudging the validity or invalidity of a candidate's certificate of nomination is not entered in time for election officials to comply with the statutory deadlines [**11] for preparing and conducting the general election, or when absentee balloting has begun during the pendency of the appeal."); see also Garmon v. Tolbert, 614 S.W.3d 190, 194 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2020, pet. denied); In re Nat'l Republican Cong. Comm., 608 S.W.3d 544, 547-48 (Tex. App.—Austin 2020, orig. proceeding).

In re Cty. of Hidalgo, 655 S.W.3d 44, 49-50 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2022, no pet. h.)