Filed Date: Dec. 20, 2017
Closed Date: Dec. 20, 2017
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about the attempt of the Texas Democratic Party to force the Texas Republican Party to keep the name of a Republican representative of the 27th Congressional District on the 2018 primary ballot because he sought to withdraw his name after the deadline for such withdrawal.
On December 20, 2017, the Texas Democratic Party and the Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiffs sued the Republican Party of Texas, the Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, and the Secretary of State for the State of Texas for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 to enforce rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth and First Amendments to the United States Constitution. Represented by counsel, the plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Texas Republican Party from removing the representative from the primary ballot. They claimed the removal of the representative's name after the deadline as outlined in the Election Code violated the Equal Protection Clause and their federal associational rights under the First Amendment.
On December 20, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their complaint to prevent the Republican Party of Texas from "circumventing the Texas Election Code" by removing Black Farenthold, a representative of the 27th Congressional District, from the primary ballot. After having been the subject of months of press attention for alleged sexual harassment and misconduct, Mr. Farenthold announced on December 14, 2017 that he would not seek re-election. Mr. Farenthold then sought to withdraw from the ballot by submitting a request to RPT on December 15, 2017. However, this was four days after the state law prescribed deadline for withdrawal, according to the Texas Election Code § 172.023(a) (providing that the deadline is the second Monday in December of an-numbered year). Due to the allegations against Mr. Farenthold, the Republican Party sought to remove him from the ballot and filed suit in the Western District of Texas, arguing the state ballot application timing statutes violated the federal constitution as applied to Republican Party under these facts. The case was referred to a magistrate, and the state agreed "to look the other way if [the Republican Party] decided to violate state law" and the Republican Party intended to remove Mr. Farenthold's name from the ballot, leading to this lawsuit brought by the Democratic Party. According to the complaint, the Democratic Party had been prevented in the past from removing candidates from the ballot after the deadline, and thus they took issue with the Republic Party being permitted to do so in this instance. The plaintiffs took the position that the Republican Party should not be allowed to "knowingly violate state law, remove a candidate from the ballot well after the deadline and do so all under the unproven claim that the state's laws violate the federal constitution. If the scheme violates the federal constitution, then [Democratic Party] is entitled to know so it can avail itself of the same rights." The plaintiffs brought two counts, one for a violation of the equal protection clause due to the alleged disparate enforcement of state election laws, and one for a violation of the first amendment right to free association. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to keep Mr. Farenthold's name on the primary ballot.
On December 20, 2017, the attorneys for the Democratic Party, an attorney for the Republican Party, and an attorney for the Secretary of State all convened for a telephone conference before a judge in the Western District of Texas. The judge informed the attorneys for the parties that he was disinclined to grant injunctive relief that would affect 254 counties, prolong primaries, and cause expense in reprinting ballots unless everyone was in agreement with that. Of course, the Republican Party and the Secretary of the State was not on board with such relief, and the attorney for the Secretary of State also emphasized that the Secretary of State's Office does not have the authority under state law to remove a candidate from the ballot and this is a party matter. The judge denied the temporary restraining order. On that same day, the plaintiffs filed a Rule 41 Stipulation of Dismissal pursuant to the ruling of the judge to deny the temporary restraining order. The court entered a final judgment dismissing the action without prejudice on December 20, 2017 as well.
This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Elizabeth Haskins (11/23/2023)
(11/22/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6245048/parties/texas-democratic-party-v-republican-party-of-texas/
Yeakel, Earl Leroy (Texas)
Brazil, K. Scott (Texas)
Dunn, Chad W. (Texas)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6245048/texas-democratic-party-v-republican-party-of-texas/
Last updated Aug. 10, 2025, 10:36 p.m.
State / Territory: Texas
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 20, 2017
Closing Date: Dec. 20, 2017
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Texas Democratic Party and Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Republican Party of Texas, Political Party
Rolando B. Pablos, Secretary of State for the State of Texas, State
James R. Dickey, Chairman of the Republican party of Texas Texas, Political Party
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Mixed
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: