Texas Cases June 08, 2023: In re Gaskill

Case Description

1

Submitted on June 7, 2023

Original Proceeding

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Relators, voters dissatisfied with the results of an election approving the Magnolia ISD's authority to issue $228,000,000 in school bonds, filed a writ of mandamus almost six months after the election seeking to compel James Charles Adcox (in his official capacity as Magnolia Independent School District's Board President) to "take such actions as necessary to conduct" a recount for the 2022 Magnolia ISD Bond Order election on Referendum A. The relators say they are not

2

seeking to contest the election's results, but that they instead want information about the machines used in the election so they will know in upcoming elections how accurate the machines are in counting votes, including an election that will occur in May 2023.

Our jurisdiction over elections, however, is limited to issuing writs of mandamus to compel the performance of an official's duties in holding an election. We hold that by waiting until after the November 8 election became final, the relators deprived this Court of jurisdiction to consider their petition for mandamus relief. Because we lack jurisdiction over the petition, we order it dismissed.

Background

On November 8, 2022, voters in the Magnolia Independent School District passed a proposal approving to sell $228,000,000 in bonds for among other things "the construction, acquisition, renovation, and equipment of school buildings in the District[.]" The measure passed, but by a margin within the ten percent threshold provided by the Election

3

Code that allowed for twenty-five or more eligible voters, acting jointly, to petition for a recount.

On November 21 Cynthia Gaskill presented Suzie Harvey, Montgomery County Elections Administrator, with a joint petition for recount. Gaskill left the petition at the Montgomery County Elections Office, and a Montgomery County employee gave Gaskill a receipt for the $2,100 Gaskill paid as deposit for the recount. That same day, Harvey (a Montgomery County Employee) emailed a copy of the petition to an

4

employee of the school district and asked that the school district's employee forward the petition to Adcox. In a telephone call to Gaskill- which also occurred on November 21-Harvey explained "that the petition would need to get forwarded to Magnolia ISD School Board President, Chuck Adcox." Gaskill also emailed a redacted copy of the petition to Adcox that day.

On December 2, Adcox notified Gaskill by email that the recount petition she submitted to Harvey had been rejected because "it was not properly or timely filed with the presiding officer of the canvassing authority." In the same email, he notified her that he was the presiding officer of the Board of Trustees, that the "Texas Election Code requires that a recount petition be filed with the presiding officer of the canvassing authority[,]" and that Magnolia ISD had "no legal authority to grant a recount on the basis of a defective application submission or waive such

5

defects." Next, Adcox notified Harvey that he had rejected the recount petition because the petition wasn't served on him as the president of the school board. He asked that Harvey work with Gaskill to return the money that Gaskill deposited for the recount.

On December 5, Gaskill then tried to serve Adcox with the recount petition where he maintained an office in a school building of the Magnolia ISD. According to Relators' petition, Gaskill went to a Magnolia ISD building to serve the petition on Adcox. But after entering the building, a school district employee told Gaskill Adcox was out of town. The employee wouldn't accept the recount petition or the cashier's check Gaskill had with her, a check for $2,100 which was drawn on Gaskill's personal account. Because Adcox was not in his office when Gaskill attempted to serve him there, she then sent him a copy of the petition by email.

Analysis

Relators argue Adcox acted in bad faith and in violation of the Election Code by rejecting the recount petition they filed with Harvey on

6

November 21. They complain that Adcox failed to advise them of his decision rejecting their petition within 48 hours "after receipt," the period in which they claim Adcox was required to inform them of his decision rejecting their petition under the Election Code. Relators add that if Adcox had the legal authority to reject their petition on November 22, they timely cured any defect in that petition on December 5, either when Gaskill attempted to deliver the petition and cashier's check for $2,100 to Adcox at the office where he usually conducts official business or when she emailed the petition to him that day. Under the Election Code, if a

7

recount petition complies with the "applicable requirements, the recount coordinator shall approve the petition and note on the petition its approved status and the date of the approval." And upon the approval of the "recount coordinator," the "recount supervisor shall. . . order the recount to be held."

The problem for Relators, however, is that within thirty days of the date the election records became publicly available, they didn't file a petition for mandamus to compel Adcox to either allow them to amend the recount petition that Gaskill served on the wrong public official on November 21 or to compel Adcox (as the recount coordinator and supervisor) to approve the petition and order a recount of the votes that

8

were cast in the school board election that occurred on November 8. To be sure, the Relators argue that Adcox didn't file their petition despite what they claim was his non-discretionary duty under the Election Code to do so. And given that duty, the relators conclude that this Court must treat the November 2 lor December 5 petitions they filed for a recount of the vote as if they had been filed within the prescribed thirty-day period the Election Code allows for filing a recount petition.

Yet as mentioned, Adcox rejected the November 21 petition that Gaskill submitted to Harvey because Gaskill didn't submit it to him but instead, she submitted it to Harvey. The email that Adcox sent Gaskill that includes his letter to her dated December 2, 2022, states: "That

9

petition [referring to the November 21 petition] is hereby rejected as it was not properly or timely filed with the presiding officer of the canvassing authority." The word "Rejected" is printed in blue ink on the November 21 petition, and Adcox signed and dated the petition as rejected on December 2. Under the Election Code and when rejecting a petition that a recount coordinator determines is not correctable, "the recount coordinator shall note on the petition its rejected status and the reason for and the date of the rejection."

Even though in his December 2 email Adcox advised Gaskill he had rejected the recount petition, on December 5 Gaskill attempted to submit a recount petition to a school district employee who worked in the building where Adcox officed. But when the employee wouldn't take the petition, Gaskill emailed it to Adcox, complaining in her email that he didn't "allow [her] to correct any defects in the petition" of November 21 or "to allow us the opportunity to amend the petition in accordance with the Election Code."

To be sure, by filing a writ of mandamus, Relators likely could have challenged Adcox's final decision rejecting the November 21 recount

10

petition and have argued that Adcox should have let them know why their petition was defective and how to correct it instead of rejecting their petition. Under the Election Code, an official authorized by law to order a recount only has a thirty-day period following the election results being made publicly available to order a recount before the official canvass becomes final. By waiting until April 28, 2023 to challenge Adcoxs decision on their petition for recount by filing a petition for mandamus- that is, a delay of 171 days after the election results of the Magnolia ISD schoolbond election became publicly available-the relators allowed the canvass of the votes cast in the Magnolia ISD school bond election to become final.

Candidly, the relators admit they are not seeking a writ under Title 14 of the Election Code, which are the sections of the Code that apply to an election contest. So as to this original proceeding, the relators are not seeking to overturn the results of the official canvass in the Magnolia ISD's school bond election, in which the majority of voters approved the

11

district's issuing $228,000,000 in school bonds. Instead, Relators argue that because a recount would provide them with "an accounting on the use and veracity of newly purchased voting equipment... in Montgomery County," their petition for mandamus is justiciable under the provisions of Title 13, the chapter of the Election Code that applies to recounting votes in an election.

We disagree with Relators, however, that a justiciable issue still exists in this case. By waiting 171 days to challenge Adcox's final decision rejecting their petition for recount, Relators allowed the results of the November 8 election to become final. Even though Relators argue the same voting equipment used in the school board election was used in the May 6, 2023, election to elect two trustees to Magnolia ISD's School Board, they have not shown how that would affect the results of the schoolboard election on November 8 of last year.

Moreover, the procedures available to Relators in the May 2023 election and in future elections allow for recounts, and the statutory procedure contemplates that a recount committee in those elections (not relators) will-in case of a recount-have the statutory rights to access

12

the information about the machines used in the election. Thus, if the May 2023 election for trustees on Magnolia ISD's School Board fell within the margin required for a recount, and if the president of Magnolia ISD's School Board abused his or her discretion in refusing to initiate a recount after being presented with a proper recount petition by twenty-five or more voters acting jointly requesting a recount under the Election Code, twenty-five or more voters in that election may file a petition for mandamus in this Court challenging the decision rejecting their petition should that occur before the recount supervisor's authority to order a recount expires.

13

Conclusion

By waiting 171 days after the election to challenge Adcox's decision rejecting the petitions Relators submitted for a recount of the vote on a school bond measure approved by voters, the relators allowedthe results of the election to become final and Adcox's duty to order a recount of the results to expire. We hold that we lack jurisdiction over this original proceeding. Accordingly, the Relator's petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed.

PETITION DISMISSED.