Appellate Court Sides With Incumbent Judge in Primary Ballot Fight
The Harris County Democratic Party must place Houston Judge George Powell's name on the ballot for its primary election. Natalia Cornelio is challenging Powell for the 351st District Court in Harris County.
January 16, 2020 at 01:29 PM
3 minute read
Houston Judge George Powell is now assured he'll appear on the Democratic Primary ballot after his opponent lost an appeal in an election dispute stemming from a shortfall in Powell's application filing fee.
Natalia Cornelio, who's challenging Powell for the 351st District Court in Harris County, sought a writ of mandamus to overturn a trial court decision that ordered the Harris County Democratic Party to certify Powell as a candidate, and put his name on the primary ballot.
But the Fourteenth Court of Appeal on Thursday ruled that Cornelio didn't qualify for mandamus relief.
The per curiam opinion explained that a writ of mandamus is only appropriate if a trial court clearly abused its discretion, and the relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. Yet Cornelio never filed a notice of appeal or attempted to secure an accelerated process, the opinion said. Also, she had already attempted to get an emergency motion for a stay of the trial court's order, but the Texas Supreme Court denied her request, the opinion said.
"I was disappointed that they chose to seek mandamus, but … I was very happy that the court saw this for what it was, and swiftly ruled for Judge Powell," said Powell's attorney, Kent Schaffer, partner in Schaffer Carter & Associates in Houston. "Now I'm hoping they let it go and let the voters decide who ought to be the next judge."
Cornelio said she would not appeal the Fourteenth Court's ruling and instead would focus on her campaign for the primary.
"My opponent and I have both been impacted by the uncertainty of this legal situation for over a month, and now it is finally resolved. However, the problems in our criminal justice system will continue until we elect judges prepared to do something about them," she said. "I am running for judge to ensure that our courts serve the community, have better bail practices and guarantee equal justice under the law."
Powell didn't immediately return a call or email seeking comment about the ruling.
The judge applied for a place on the ballot Dec. 9, which was the deadline for candidates to file to run. A staff member of the Harris County Democratic Party inadvertently told him his filing fee was $1,500, and a manager accepted Powell's application without noting the filing fee error. Powell was supposed to have paid $2,500.
But just after this, Powell assisted another candidate by writing a $2,500 check for her filing fee and allowing her to reimburse him later, since she only had a debit card, which the party wouldn't accept. That candidate was eventually rejected for other reasons, and Powell argued that the party should have applied that $2,500 to his own filing fee, rather than rejecting him as a candidate for failing to pay the right amount.
A trial judge sided with his arguments and ordered the party to accept his application, certify him as a candidate and place his name on the primary ballot.
Because the Fourteenth Court rejected Cornelio's attempt to overturn that order, it means that the local Democratic party must place Powell's name on the ballot.
Those ballots must meet a Jan. 18 deadline to go to the printer.
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
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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