Houston Judge Fighting to Get Name on Ballot; Risks Losing Job After Fee Shortfall
The crux of the dispute is that 351st District Judge George Powell, who filed on the deadline of Dec. 9, 2019, paid only $1,500 when he actually owed a $2,500 filing fee. The Harris County Democratic Party rejected his application the next day.
January 06, 2020 at 06:26 PM
4 minute read
A court hearing Tuesday will decide whether 351st District Judge George Powell of Houston has already lost his reelection bid after his filing fee for the Democratic Primary fell short by $1,000.
Because of the filing fee shortfall, the Harris County Democratic Party rejected Powell's application for the Democratic Primary in March. The judge filed a lawsuit to fight to get his name on the ballot.
The crux of the dispute is that Powell, who filed on the deadline of Dec. 9, 2019, paid $1,500 when he should have covered a $2,500 filing fee, court documents show. The party rejected his application the next day.
In his lawsuit against the party and its officials, Powell alleged that a party staff member told him incorrectly that his filing fee was $1,500. He argued that in this situation, state law required the party to give him an opportunity to cure the error, and place him on the primary ballot.
Kent Schaffer, partner in Schaffer Carter & Associates in Houston, said the defendants in depositions have admitted they made a mistake by telling Powell the wrong filing fee, and initially approving his application without spotting the error.
"The whole issue goes to whether they have to accept his application when they are the ones who provided the incorrect information," Schaffer said. "Whether it was done intentionally or negligently, the bottom line is incorrect information was provided."
The defendants' lawyer, Cris Feldman, partner in Feldman & Feldman in Houston, said the defendants deny Powell's allegations and oppose his request for a temporary injunction.
"It's the responsibility of all candidates to accurately and correctly file an application to be on the ballot," he said. "Otherwise, you get into a situation where county parties are having to use too much independent discretion and judgment calls, that could appear to illustrate favoritism one way or another."
In the lawsuit, Powell argued that the party's chair, Lillie Schechter, and secretary, Jennifer Halvorsen, were required by law to be at the location where candidates submit applications on the filing deadline. Powell claimed that they were not there, but if they had, they could have corrected their staff member's error.
Powell also claimed that at the time he was there, another judicial candidate couldn't pay her filing fee because the party doesn't accept debit cards, and she did not have a check. Powell helped her by writing a $2,500 check to the party to cover her filing fee. Later, her application was rejected because it was incomplete. Powell argued that the party could have applied the $2,500 check he wrote for her to his own filing fee.
Earlier in the case, Powell won a temporary restraining order to prohibit the party from printing primary ballots that omitted his name. The hearing on Tuesday will decide whether the court extends that relief in the form of a temporary injunction to force the party to allow him to cure his application and to place his name on the primary ballot.
If Powell loses his lawsuit, it would mean the only Democratic candidate for the 351st District Court is Natalia Cornelio. On the Republican side, Arlene Hecht is the only candidate.
Cornelio has intervened as a defendant in Powell's lawsuit to protect her interests. She denied all of Powell's allegations in her petition in intervention, and asked the court to deny Powell's requested relief.
Larry Veselka, co-founding partner in Smyser Kaplan & Veselka in Houston, who represents Cornelio, said she just wants to protect her interests.
"There are things the judge could have done differently to avoid the problem that he is in," said Veselka, noting that Powell could have filed his application earlier than the last day so he would have time to cure problems. "Whatever mistakes he made and whatever mistakes the judge claims that the county made, she didn't make any mistakes, and that should be taken into account. We're not saying what the result should be."
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEven With New Business Courts, Texas Is a Long Way from Taking Delaware's Corporate Law Mantle
5 minute read'Courts Do Get It Wrong': Legal Experts Discuss State-Law Certification Pros and Cons
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Construction Worker Hit By Falling Concrete Settles Claims for $2.3M
- 2Phila. Jury Hits Sig Sauer With $11M Verdict Over Alleged Gun Defect
- 3Lost in the Legal Maze: How State Regulations Are Hindering Hemp Operators' Success
- 4New Associates Yearbook 2024
- 5Disbarred Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Lawsuit Against Miami-Dade Judges
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250