The Secretary of State was able to comply with that deadline, and the Barr campaign was actually trying to block the mailing of ballots.

Further, Texas required the Democrat and Republican parties to hold presidential primaries (if they wished to have a candidate on the November ballot). It also required those parties to allocate a substantial share of delegates to their national conventions on the basis of the primaries.

Had the Texas parties complied with the letter of the law, the State of Texas would have forced them either to hold meaningless primaries, or to designate candidates before the national convention had chosen them.

In your speech on the State of the Judiciary Delivered February 20, 2007 you stated

“The state of our judiciary is strong. It is strong because of the public servants sitting before me, Judges who have devoted their lives to ensuring that Texans have a fair and impartial forum to resolve grievances”
you go on to state

“When citizens flee our judicial system, however, we lose the public component of justice. The courts of Texas are open and accessible. Cases that are litigated in our courts (even those involving private conflicts) often affect public interests use, a stable legal environment promoting investment in the Texas market. An open court system ensures that the people of Texas benefit from a full public airing of the issues, and it allows innovations and solutions learned from today´s cases to help resolve tomorrow´s disputes. A deliberate progression in the law ensures that similar cases are treated similarly and that litigants can count on fair and even-handed justice. And when the law does change, court decisions evolve with that change in a principled and considered manner. Careful application of the law at the trial level and a guaranteed right to appellate review allow the judicial system to avoid arbitrary results.”

Let me repeat that last phrase that I am sure you spoke so eloquently “to avoid arbitrary results.”

Today, the court that you are a member of, denied without comment the petition of Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root, who asked that the Texas election laws be applied equally. Now perhaps their interpretation of the law and the facts of the case are incorrect. If so the people of Texas and the people of the United States deserve to understand why.

Without, comment tends to imply that you don’t owe the people of Texas an explanation of why the clear reading of the Texas Election Law doesn’t apply to the powerful political parties.

I think that under these circumstances you and your court have dishonored the ideals you so clearly enunciated.

Sincerely,

Stephen Meier

I notice that your web page banner uses the terms impartial, presumably to describe your character. Your site also elaborates as you put it “consider it my duty to the people of Texas, and to those who have gone before us, to interpret laws, not make them.”

Today, the court that you are a member of, denied without comment the petition of Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root, who asked that the Texas election laws be applied equally. Now perhaps their interpretation of the law and the facts of the case are incorrect. If so the people of Texas and the people of the United States deserve to understand why.

Without, comment tends to imply that you don’t owe the people of Texas an explanation of why the clear reading of the Texas Election Law doesn’t apply to the powerful political parties.

I think that under these circumstances you should strike the words impartial from off of your web banner and add to your explanation that a non-uniform application of the law is a right of the powerful.

Sincerely,

Stephen Meier

I notice that your web page banner uses the terms integrity and balanced, presumably to describe your character.

Integrity implies that when you swore to uphold the Constitution of Texas and the laws of Texas that you would put your actions behind your words.

Balanced means that you would apply the law equally with out regard for how politically powerful are the parties.

Today, the court that you are a member of, denied without comment the petition of Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root, who asked that the Texas election laws be applied equally. Now perhaps their interpretation of the law and the facts of the case are incorrect. If so the people of Texas and the people of the United States deserve to understand why.

Without, comment tends to imply that you don’t owe the people of Texas an explanation of why the clear reading of the Texas Election Law doesn’t apply to the powerful political parties.

I think that under these circumstances you should strike the words balanced and integrity from off of your web banner.

Today, the court that you are a member of, denied without comment the petition of Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root, who asked that the Texas election laws be applied equally. Now perhaps their interpretation of the law and the facts of the case are incorrect. If so the people of Texas and the people of the United States deserve to understand why.

Without, comment tends to imply that you don’t owe the people of Texas an explanation of why the clear reading of the Texas Election Law doesn’t apply to the powerful political parties.

I think that under these circumstances you should strike the words balanced and integrity from off of your web banner.

Chief justice Wallace Jefferson is info@wallacejefferson.com
Justice phil Johnson is info@justicephiljohnson.com

Justice Dale Wainwright is srwhitus@reelectdalewainwright.com or
Jon@reelectdalewainwright.com or contact@reelectdalewainwright.com