Texas parties are required to hold precinct conventions which eventually lead to county and state conventions. Under Texas law, the parties are required to select their national delegates at the state convention. Surely, they could not be expected to comply with some sections of Texas law, by violating others.

You’re also misunderstanding the Texas Democrat’s convoluted delegation selection process. State law requires 3/4 of national delegates (other than party and elected official) to be allocated on the basis of the primaries – the actual details of the allocation are set by party rule. Texas Democrats allocated other delegates based on the precinct (and succeeding) conventions They skirted the 3/4 rule by also allocating “elected official” seats on the basis of the precinct conventions, even though that simply meant the selected delegate might be a city councilman.

In any case, since the state conventions were held in June, this had no effect on the ability of the state parties to comply with the premature deadline set by Texas.

The Texas parties could not require the national parties to hold their conventions in time to comply with Texas law. But under Texas law, they could not place candidates on the general election ballot if they did not hold a primary and select delegates for the national convention.

This gave the parties three “choices”

(1) Not place a candidate on the general election ballot;

(2) Hold a presidential primary and select delegates to the national convention; but submit the name of the nominees to the state of Texas prior to the national convention having selected them.

(3) Hold a presidential primary and select delegates to the national convention, participate in the convention, and submit the names of the nominees after the deadline, but in sufficient time for the Secretary of State to certify the candidates to county election officials.

(1) and (2) are not real options and would not be upheld by a federal court as being constitutional.

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/oralarguments/1996/96-0872.edited.mp3

Texas State Law Library | 205 West 14th Street | Austin, Texas 78701-1614 | (512) 463-1722 | Fax (512) 463-1728 |

The publication date of the descision was October 2nd, 1996 and Texas doesn’t have electronic records of court decsions available on line before (I think) September of 1997.

IN RE FROST NATIONAL BANK, FORMER EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ELENA SUESS KENEDY, DECEASED; FROST NATIONAL BANK AND PABLO SUESS, TRUSTEES OF THE JOHN G. KENEDY, JR. CHARITABLE TRUST; AND
THE MISSIONARY OBLATE FATHERS OF TEXAS
* * *
REPLY TO RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

In Rivercenter Assoc. v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993) (orig. proceeding), this Court held that an unexplained delay by those who “slumber on their rights” may justify denial of a mandamus petition. Here, the Relators have explained the delay. Further, laches applies only if the Real Party has demonstrated harm, which Fernandez has failed to establish.

Regardless, laches will not bar the right to relief when important interests are at stake. Bird v. Rothstein, 930 S.W.2d 586, 588 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding).

(explaining that “[t]wo essential elements of laches are (1) unreasonable delay by one having legal or equitable rights in asserting them; and (2) a good faith change of position by another to his detriment because of the delay”).

I have found Davis v Taylor.

The national parties called a national convention. If the state parties wished to place presidential candidates on the November ballot, they were required to hold a presidential primary; use the results of the primary to allocate most of the delegates to the national convention; and select the actual delegates at a state convention.

The state of Texas’s rationale for these requirements is obvious. They want Texas voters to be involved in the nominating process of the national party conventions. It defeats that purpose if the delegates are selected, but the nominees must be determined prior to the convention.