In the wake of a court ruling keeping state Sen. Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury, on the ballot, lawyers for his Democratic opponent and the state party are deciding whether to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court. But time is short: Under state election law, Friday, August 20, is the last day a candidate who is removed from the ballot can be replaced.
On Thursday, the state's 5th Court of Appeals decided Birdwell can stay on the November ballot, throwing out the Democratic challenge that he hasn't been a resident of the state long enough to satisfy constitutional requirements.
Birdwell voted in Virginia in November 2006, and the Democrats argued that the vote established him as a resident of that state. The Texas constitution requires senators to be Texas residents for the five years before they're seated. Plaintiffs asked the court to rule whether Birdwell is eligible to serve before November 2011 — five years after his Virginia vote — or whether he was always a resident of Texas under state law even though he was voting in another state. But the court denied the petition on technical grounds, saying Democratic plaintiffs hadn't properly contested the residency and failed to submit authenticated records to the court as evidence. It never addressed whether Birdwell is, in fact, a legal resident for political purposes; it ruled instead that the court had "no authority" to make the call.
Birdwell, who won office in a special election earlier this summer, was nominated for a full term by state party officials when the incumbent senator, Kip Averitt of McGregor, resigned from office. Democrats appointed John Cullar to run against him. Cullar and the Texas Democratic Party filed suit against Birdwell the next morning, asking the courts to take the Republican off the ballot.
Because of the tight timeframe, the Democrats went directly to the appellate courts with their lawsuit. A three-judge panel from the Dallas court ruled against them and said it won't consider rehearing the case because of those pending election deadlines.
"We find no applicable section of the election code that empowers us to simply declare Birdwell ineligible and order respondents to do whatever is necessary to take Birdwell off the ballot," the judges ruled. They said the Democrats failed to go to the Republicans in the first place to demand Birdwell be taken off the ballot, and that, because they hadn't tried that remedy and been denied, the Democrats were not in a position to ask the courts to do what the Republicans wouldn't do. The Republicans, the court ruled, were never given an opportunity to refuse to fix the problem.
In addition, the judges said in their ruling, they were being asked to rely on photocopies of the Virginia voting documents instead of documents that were properly vetted. "None of the documents relied upon by relators contains any verification as to authenticity," they wrote.
The judges never actually got to the question of whether Birdwell has been a resident of Texas long enough to serve in the Senate. "Relators seek a determination from this Court as to whether Birdwell is, in fact, ineligible as a candidate. We have no authority to make such a factual determination," the judges wrote. Instead, they ruled, "We conclude the 'records' relied upon by relators, i.e., the documents attached to their petition and in the condition described above, do not conclusively establish Birdwell is an ineligible candidate for the Texas Senate."
That met with the reactions you might expect from the partisans. Birdwell and the Republicans were exultant and said the ruling proves what they've contended all along. The Democrats blamed the result on Republican judges and immediately began huddling over whether to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which is made up of nine Republican justices.
Im thrilled with todays win, and pleased that the court clearly saw through this desperate attempt by the Democrats to thwart the will of the voters and win a senate seat through judicial activism," Birdwell said in a news release. "Two things should be obvious to everyone by now. First, I live here and am legally qualified to represent the good people of Senate District 22. And second, a majority of voters want me to represent them."
The Democrats can appeal, but they don't have much time to work with. "Were reviewing the options with our attorneys," said party spokeswoman Kirsten Gray late Thursday afternoon. "Make no mistake: John Cullar is the only candidate whose eligibility is not in question."
Friday is the last day a candidate who's been removed from the ballot — for reasons ranging from ineligibility to second thoughts to death — can be replaced with another candidate for the November elections. If the state's high court were to decide to reverse Thursday's ruling and remove Birdwell, today is the latest that he could come off the ballot and be replaced by another Republican. A candidate removed today would then have to be replaced by Tuesday, August 24, unless the courts also moved the deadlines.
Here's another twist: A candidate removed from the ballot after today can't be replaced on the ballot without a court order. That offers an unlikely sliver of hope to Democrats who'd like to knock Birdwell off the ballot and to leave the GOP without a way to replace him.
The politics of the district overwhelmingly favor the GOP. Republican John McCain clobbered Democrat Barack Obama in SD-22 in 2008, 68 percent to 31 percent; statewide, McCain won by a slimmer margin of 55 percent to 44 percent. Short of running on a ballot with no Republican at all, Cullar, the Democrat, will have to hope voters will turn away a career military officer and victim of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon because of a dispute over whether he voted in Virginia in 2006.